The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Arizona Fed Judge’s Critics ‘Expressed Their Displeasure in a Perverted Way’

Posted on | July 30, 2010 | 12 Comments

The people aren’t happy with Judge Susan Bolton:

Authorities say a federal judge in Phoenix has been getting some threats since her ruling on Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
David Gonzales, the U.S. Marshal for Arizona, says U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has received thousands of phone calls and e-mails since her preliminary injunction Wednesday that put key provisions of the state’s immigration law on hold.
Gonzales says some of the messages sent to Bolton are positive, but others are “from people venting and who have expressed their displeasure in a perverted way.”

I’m guessing at least one of those calls was from Mel Gibson.

Category: Arizona, Immigration

Comments

12 Responses to “Arizona Fed Judge’s Critics ‘Expressed Their Displeasure in a Perverted Way’”

  1. Estragon
    July 30th, 2010 @ 4:30 am

    So, what did they say?

    “What are you wearing under those robes, baby?”

    Of course, if the calls are truly perverted, they might be traced to Bill Clinton’s cell #.

  2. Estragon
    July 30th, 2010 @ 12:30 am

    So, what did they say?

    “What are you wearing under those robes, baby?”

    Of course, if the calls are truly perverted, they might be traced to Bill Clinton’s cell #.

  3. Joe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 4:52 am

    Truth is, while I support the purpose of the law and certainly do not consider it wrong to enforce laws to control illegal immigration, immigration is a federal issue. It is what it is.

  4. Joe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 12:52 am

    Truth is, while I support the purpose of the law and certainly do not consider it wrong to enforce laws to control illegal immigration, immigration is a federal issue. It is what it is.

  5. Greywolfe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 5:25 am

    Joe, the framers of the constitution had no intention of handcuffing the states. Prior to the war between the states, the states would have handled this and told the feds to pound sand.

    The fact is, the end of the story based on your argument is, if the feds want to allow baby raping, drug pedaling, murderous malcontents to invade your state, then you have to let them.

    That is one of the largest, smelliest piles of bovine scatology that I’ve ever encountered. (and I live in Oklahoma). That’s like these moron cities and states that tell people that they can’t own fire arms in their homes for defense. It flies in the face of reason.

    Illegal immigration would be a federal issue only if the feds were actually doing anything about it, rather than using it for a political football for the last 30 years.

  6. Greywolfe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 1:25 am

    Joe, the framers of the constitution had no intention of handcuffing the states. Prior to the war between the states, the states would have handled this and told the feds to pound sand.

    The fact is, the end of the story based on your argument is, if the feds want to allow baby raping, drug pedaling, murderous malcontents to invade your state, then you have to let them.

    That is one of the largest, smelliest piles of bovine scatology that I’ve ever encountered. (and I live in Oklahoma). That’s like these moron cities and states that tell people that they can’t own fire arms in their homes for defense. It flies in the face of reason.

    Illegal immigration would be a federal issue only if the feds were actually doing anything about it, rather than using it for a political football for the last 30 years.

  7. GS
    July 30th, 2010 @ 5:26 am

    Joe,

    You’re right.. until the federal government decides NOT to enforce immigration law at all.

    At this point saying immigration law is the fed’s prerogative is like saying that it was the the Crown’s prerogative to tax the shit out of the colonies. Legally? Surely. Realistically. Dunno.

  8. GS
    July 30th, 2010 @ 1:26 am

    Joe,

    You’re right.. until the federal government decides NOT to enforce immigration law at all.

    At this point saying immigration law is the fed’s prerogative is like saying that it was the the Crown’s prerogative to tax the shit out of the colonies. Legally? Surely. Realistically. Dunno.

  9. Joe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

    @ 3 and 4.

    I do not disagree with your frustrations. I am just not surprised the law is being challenged in the courts. In a way it is a gift that Obama is leading the fight on it legally. He can and should own this issue and the policy he has followed in not enforcing immigration laws because he wants his form of immigration reform.

  10. Joe
    July 30th, 2010 @ 9:27 am

    @ 3 and 4.

    I do not disagree with your frustrations. I am just not surprised the law is being challenged in the courts. In a way it is a gift that Obama is leading the fight on it legally. He can and should own this issue and the policy he has followed in not enforcing immigration laws because he wants his form of immigration reform.

  11. Adobe Walls
    July 30th, 2010 @ 4:31 pm

    As Arizona’s law did not seek to create it’s own definition of what an illegal immigrant is, it created conflict only with Obama’s immigrations policies not federal immigration law. This administration is unable to make the distinction between it’s policies and actual law. Apparently Judge Bolton suffers from the same mental impairment.

  12. Adobe Walls
    July 30th, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

    As Arizona’s law did not seek to create it’s own definition of what an illegal immigrant is, it created conflict only with Obama’s immigrations policies not federal immigration law. This administration is unable to make the distinction between it’s policies and actual law. Apparently Judge Bolton suffers from the same mental impairment.