AZ Governor Slams 'Foreign Interference' [Archive]

View Full Version : AZ Governor Slams 'Foreign Interference'

Mjolnir

10-09-10, 17:10

This should concern all Americans. This opens Pandora's box.

AZ Governor Slams 'Foreign Interference'
URL: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=81D57D69-EFC4-73F0-C7B1EBF486107343
By: Scott Wong
October 6, 2010 09:57 AM EDT

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

STILL THINK GLOBALISM IS A GREAT IDEA? ALL OF THESE UNO TREATIES & "AGREEMENTS" AS WELL AS ALL OF THE "FREE TRADE" LEGISLATION IS KILLING US. :suicide2:

montanadave

10-10-10, 06:58

You're worried about a half dozen foreign countries filing Amicus Curiae briefs at the appellate court level when the Supreme Court, with their ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, has opened the floodgates to allow multinational corporations to spend untold millions of dollars to effect the outcomes of our elections?

Pardon me if I don't get too worked up over the challenge to SB 1070.

BrianS

10-10-10, 07:03

...to spend untold millions of dollars to effect the outcomes of our elections?

Effect the outcomes of elections by participating in activity protected by the 1st Amendment. What a boogeyman that is.

montanadave

10-10-10, 07:35

Effect the outcomes of elections by activity protected by the 1st Amendment. What a boogeyman that is.

I'm not really interested in rearguing the Citizens United case (or hijacking this thread), but I'm fairly certain the Bill of Rights was intended to insure the rights of individual citizens, not multinational corporations. But, hey, if Amerika, Inc. floats your boat...

BrianS

10-10-10, 07:38

I'm not really interested in rearguing the Citizens United case...

Me neither. My side won.

...but I'm fairly certain the Bill of Rights was intended to insure the rights of individual citizens

Individual citizens form corporations in order to have strength in numbers, just as with unions and other groups, and these groups have the right to express the views of their constituents. What is so scary about people buying TV Ads and competing in the marketplace of ideas? BTW How does one individually peaceably assemble? I think that is a collective action and the rights protected are both individual and group.

As far as the foreign countries submitting Amicus Curiae briefs, I don't see the big deal. Maybe there is a constitutional scholar on the board that can tell us if it is unheard of for a foreign government to file an Amicus?

mmike87

10-10-10, 20:58

As a counter argument - if corporations are taxed as separate entities, why shouldn't they be allowed to contribute money, etc? Otherwise, it's taxation without representation.

Nearly 50% of the country gets to vote and contribute without paying a DIME in federal income tax.

Note sure how I personally feel about this yet. Still giving it thought.

Heavy Metal

10-10-10, 21:11

I'm not really interested in rearguing the Citizens United case (or hijacking this thread), but I'm fairly certain the Bill of Rights was intended to insure the rights of individual citizens, not multinational corporations. But, hey, if Amerika, Inc. floats your boat...

Or we could just be like our current POTUS and disable all verification on credit card donations in order to allow unlimited, totally anonymous cash contributions from foreign nations directly into our campaign account.

I hope the Republican Congress has the balls to investigate this issue. There is real dynamite there. Go to jail dynamite.

chadbag

10-10-10, 21:43

Or we could just be like our current POTUS and disable all verification on credit card donations in order to allow unlimited, totally anonymous cash contributions from foreign nations directly into our campaign account.

I hope the Republican Congress has the balls to investigate this issue. There is real dynamite there. Go to jail dynamite.

Of course, Obama was complaining, from what I read today, that the Republicans are accepting foreign donations this election cycle. (I don't know if they are or are not but I thought it mighty strange for him to be complaining about that)

chadbag

10-10-10, 21:44

Multinational corps cannot spend money to influence elections. Their US affiliates can. They are US registered companies and should be able to express their thoughts and viewpoints just as much as you or I. They do get raped on taxes after all and should have a say in government that taxes their money and spends it and passes laws that affect their business.

Belmont31R

10-10-10, 21:49

Money issue aside Obama campaigned on being more responsive to international opinion such as Gitmo.

How can you say our foreign policy should be based on world opinion yet say foreign money should not be used in our elections? Money can translate into opinion, no?

Heavy Metal

10-10-10, 23:05

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/pot-calls-kettle-----104639779.html

Pot calls kettle . . . .
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
10/09/10 6:10 PM EDT
Glenn Reynolds nails this one: the Obama Democrats’ campaign riff against foreign donations to Democrats is bogus—and according to the New York Times, no less. This looks like a matter of projection, since it’s well documented that the 2008 Obama campaign did not put in place address verification software that would have routinely prevented most foreign donations. In effect they were encouraging donations by foreign nationals. Here’s the Washington Post on this back in October 2008:

Snip.....

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/pot-calls-kettle-----104639779.html#ixzz121Hj3IX6

theblackknight

10-10-10, 23:22

FromMyColdDeadHand

10-11-10, 02:47

Gutshot John

10-11-10, 07:58

STILL THINK GLOBALISM IS A GREAT IDEA? ALL OF THESE UNO TREATIES & "AGREEMENTS" AS WELL AS ALL OF THE "FREE TRADE" LEGISLATION IS KILLING US. :suicide2:

Except one has nothing, nada, zip to do with the other.

Do you know how much an amicus brief is worth to a court in rendering a decision?

Far less than the paper it's printed on.

Nice try though.

FromMyColdDeadHand

10-11-10, 08:18

Except one has nothing, nada, zip to do with the other.

Do you know how much an amicus brief is worth to a court in rendering a decision?

Far less than the paper it's printed on.

Nice try though.

Can a lawyer gives the skinny on Amicus briefs? I've often wondered why there aren't more in big cases, besides GJs point about being useless. If it allows a judge to use evidence of arguements not put forth be either party, or brought up in the trial, that might be interesting to know.

Go ahead, let a judge cite some banana republics arguement in his decision, and let the fur hit the fan.

Gutshot John

10-11-10, 10:37

Can a lawyer gives the skinny on Amicus briefs? I've often wondered why there aren't more in big cases, besides GJs point about being useless. If it allows a judge to use evidence of arguements not put forth be either party, or brought up in the trial, that might be interesting to know.

Go ahead, let a judge cite some banana republics arguement in his decision, and let the fur hit the fan.

I overstated slightly when I said that Amicus briefs are "worthless" often they are but a judge won't use a friend of a court if irrelevant to the original parties' argument. Amicus briefs are filed all the time they are also rejected all the time. The brief however must expound on the original arguments. Having the ability to file a brief is different than compelling its acceptance or consideration.

It's not just evidence, it's simply bringing up points relevant to the original parties' arguments.

Foreign parties are certainly allowed access to the American legal system and have been allowed to forever. They do however have to be based on actual evidence/jurisprudence and relevant to the American system. They cannot simply be what some banana republic court said at another time as was the OPs implication.

A judge could not disregard evidence in favor of an amicus brief.

Also I believe that if filing an amicus the party in question must show where it gathered the financial support to do so.

Mjolnir

10-11-10, 17:08

Except one has nothing, nada, zip to do with the other.

Do you know how much an amicus brief is worth to a court in rendering a decision?

Far less than the paper it's printed on.

Nice try though.
Last I checked Globalism also includes Open Borders... :rolleyes:

I also see you "checked" yourself on the topic of amicus briefs.

Thanks for the honesty on that matter.

As you may already know a judge may rule many ways counter the Constitution or Bill of Rights. How do you think we've gotten where we are?

Gutshot John

10-11-10, 18:34

Last I checked Globalism also includes Open Borders... :rolleyes:

Nonsense. In a global economy all legitimately traded goods still pass through customs. Are you really that ignorant? or do you just make stuff up as you go.

I also see you "checked" yourself on the topic of amicus briefs.

Thanks for the honesty on that matter.

You apparently didn't read far enough. Amicus briefs are almost invariably not worth much, they almost never change the outcome of a case based on their own merits. While they may elucidate an issue, they cannot run counter to existing law. Your implication that foreign parties could challenge SB 1070 through an amicus brief or that it "opens Pandora's box" is flatly, demonstrably, irrevocably false. Foreign parties have been able to issue amicus briefs (as well as sue) in American courts since time immemorial. Just because you can issue an amicus brief, doesn't require its acceptance or even its consideration. If a decision was rendered based solely on an amicus brief that didn't reference existing jurisprudence it would get shot down in record time on appeal.

I'm glad you appreciate that I argue in good faith, now you can return the favor.

As you may already know a judge may rule many ways counter the Constitution or Bill of Rights. How do you think we've gotten where we are?

Uhm no. If I "slightly" overstated my case in regards to amicus briefs, you've gone off the deep end. Care to back up the above claim with some citations or at least some examples of when a judge threw out the Constitution and said an amicus brief was more relevant? They may rule counter to your interpretation but given how little you seem to understand about the topic I'm not sure your interpretation bears any weight.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says foreign parties can't be involved in US courts or issue amicus briefs. There is no "pandora's box."

That said amicus briefs are issued all the time, even if accepted, there is no obligation to consider them any more than they form evidence. The amicus brief still has to argue within the confines of US law and jurisprudence.

In short your OP is pure fantasy.

Mjolnir

10-11-10, 22:32

Nonsense. In a global economy all legitimately traded goods still pass through customs. Are you really that ignorant? or do you just make stuff up as you go.

You apparently didn't read far enough. Amicus briefs are almost invariably not worth much, they almost never change the outcome of a case based on their own merits. While they may elucidate an issue, they cannot run counter to existing law. Your implication that foreign parties could challenge SB 1070 through an amicus brief or that it "opens Pandora's box" is flatly, demonstrably, irrevocably false. Foreign parties have been able to issue amicus briefs (as well as sue) in American courts since time immemorial. Just because you can issue an amicus brief, doesn't require its acceptance or even its consideration. If a decision was rendered based solely on an amicus brief that didn't reference existing jurisprudence it would get shot down in record time on appeal.

I'm glad you appreciate that I argue in good faith, now you can return the favor.

Uhm no. If I "slightly" overstated my case in regards to amicus briefs, you've gone off the deep end. Care to back up the above claim with some citations or at least some examples of when a judge threw out the Constitution and said an amicus brief was more relevant? They may rule counter to your interpretation but given how little you seem to understand about the topic I'm not sure your interpretation bears any weight.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says foreign parties can't be involved in US courts or issue amicus briefs. There is no "pandora's box."

That said amicus briefs are issued all the time, even if accepted, there is no obligation to consider them any more than they form evidence. The amicus brief still has to argue within the confines of US law and jurisprudence.

In short your OP is pure fantasy.
ALL of the above... :suicide2:

Good luck

Gutshot John

10-12-10, 14:19

ALL of the above... :suicide2:

Good luck

So, in short, you've got nothing to back up your absurd claims?

Not exactly a surprise.

Mjolnir

10-12-10, 17:39

So, in short, you've got nothing to back up your absurd claims?

Not exactly a surprise.

Funny coming from a guy who embellishes facts and is absolutely clueless on "globalism". A simple HONEST search would probably list 'open borders' as part of Globalism. Certainly documentation from Foreign Affairs and from known Trilateral Commission members speak of them as one and the same. But then I guess it requires for one to (A) give a damn and (B) use his/her own God-given Mind as opposed to the Elite's propped stooges on CNN, MSNBC, FOX & the Ivory Tower set.

Guess it aint for everybody...

Keep up the pipedream and "licking the boots" of the guy who kicked ya. Strange how you haven't figured it out yet. The same bastards who wish for a Globalist Society led by the Elite Banking Establishment and their ilk are the same bastards who wish to see the US on it's prostrate but not before they wrest the guns you so love from your little hands. Do you REALLY think there's nothing more to the planned disarming this nation? :sarcastic: I knew you didn't.

It's a mult-pronged attack and you (and anyone else) can prove it to yourself if you choose to. Nothing is really hidden; just open your mind and eyes a bit and pay attention. Or not as the case may be. It's YOUR life and YOUR nation and YOUR responsibility, too, you know...

Iraqgunz

10-12-10, 19:32

Obviously people can't behave themselves. Good night.