DEATH ROW UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court Won't Reconsider Arizona Death Sentences Vs. Scottsdale Sons-Murderer Andre Leteve

In addition to denying Sheriff Joe's immigration-related petition today, the U.S. Supreme Court ended Andre Leteve's appeals of his Arizona death sentences for murdering his two young sons in Scottsdale six year ago.  The Court refused his petition for relief after the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence in August.

Leteve purchased a handgun, killed his 5- and 1-year old children with it and shot himself in the face after separating from his wife. Here is how the Arizona Supreme Court summarized the case.

Leteve had appealed the two death sentences (one for each son) on a large number of reasons. The Arizona justices addressed the top several; the U.S. Supreme Court justices declined to address any of them.

Leteve will remain on Arizona's death row. Leteve's case attracted worldwide attention for the heinousness and depravity of the actions.


Tempe attorney Paul Weich contributed this article.

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.

Carlos Santana's Thought(s) For The Day: Man's Heart, Man's Law

"Mans law does not change a mans heart, but mans heart can change the law." With those words - and others - music legend Carlos Santana returned to his usual peace/beauty/love/spiritual territory on Monday, when he posted his "thought of the day" on his typically-impersonal Facebook page.  Over the weekend, he made an uncharacteristic stretch into political controversy over the weekend when he castigated Georgia and Arizona for what he perceives as shameful anti-illegal immigration laws. 

Santana strung together several thoughts for his thought(s) of the day, all of which appeared to be reaction to the pushback he was witnessing to his earlier comments.  The full posting is after the jump.

Somewhat humorously, many of the derisive comments launched at the eternally-spiritual and soft-spoken guitarist focused on his ingratitude at making his comments when receiving an award and/or were of the "shut up and sing" variety. 

Having seen Santana in concert more than once, I can aver that Santana rarely sings - other than making his guitar sing - and that he rarely says much between songs (other than saying things like "thank you" and "God bless").  Shut up and sing did not even apply this weekend, when he did not sing, and when people did not even buy tickets to hear him sing.

And, in fact, he repeatedly expressed gratitude for being honored with the CIVIL RIGHTS BEACON award, and named off many of his civil rights heroes who he believes are far more important than he is.  But, would it have not been more of a shame if he - or MLB - did refrain from mentioning what he feels is an important CURRENT civil rights issue?  At a civil rights awards ceremony? 

P.S.  I made a quick attempt to determine whether Carlos Santana is quoting anyone else regarding man's heart being able to change man's law.  It is a creative variation on religious statements about God's law vs. man's law.  I did not turn up anything, and am tentatively concluding that the words are Santana's own. If anyone knows otherwise, please let us know.

Just A Thought: MLB Should Bring Annual "Civil Rights Game" To Arizona, Pronto

COMMENTARY:

In light of the attempts by SB1070 opponents to keep Major League Baseball ("MLB") from bringing its All-Star Game to Phoenix, and in light of this weekend's comments by soft-spoken music legend Carlos Santana at MLB's 5th annual "Civil Rights Game" and the comments by MLB Commissioner (and part-time Arizonan), would it not be an appropriate response by MLB to bring the Civil Rights Game to Phoenix?

Controversial? Certainly.  Appropriate, for a number of reasons?  Definitely.

Santana hit the nail on the head.  While noting the civil rights movement of the 60's (and before, and since), he spoke out about the civil rights issue of the 10's (and before, and to come).  And, Arizona - by the desire of both those attempting to crack down on illegal immigration and those claiming that it violates the civil rights of those in the U.S. legally and illegally - has been center stage in the current civil rights debate.

The news coverage of this past weekend notes that the game is committed to be played in Atlanta again next year;  it is not likely that it has been scheduled beyond that.  Whether the Arizona Diamondbacks and/or Arizona makes a bid for the 2013 game, MLB should announce Phoenix as the host now.  Before the media writes its own narrative about Arizona hosting the All-Star Game in July.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH: Carlos Santana To "The People of Arizona": "You Should Be Ashamed of Yourselves"

The soft-spoken music legend Carlos Santana carried a big stick yesterday when he was honored by Major League Baseball with a "Beacon of Change" award before the MLB's annual Civil Rights Game in Atlanta.

On Friday, Georgia's governor had signed into law a bill that contains some similarities to Arizona's well-known SB 1070, dealing with enforcement of illegal immigration.  Santana took the microphone and said, "The people of Arizona, and the people of Atlanta, Georgia, you should be ashamed of yourselves."

After the on-field ceremony, he elaborated: "This law is not correct. It's a cruel law, actually.  This is about fear. Stop shucking and jiving. People are afraid we're going to steal your job. No we aren't. You're not going to change sheets and clean toilets."

Added Santana: "This is the United States. This is the land of the free. If people want the immigration laws to keep passing, then everybody should get out and leave the American Indians here."

He did not try to link Arizona's law - which is mainly on hold pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether to accept an upcoming writ of certiorari from Arizona - with the upcoming MLB All-Star game in Phoenix.

We will have more to add to this post shortly, but here is a report of his on-field statements (with photos), as well as a link to a soft-spoken video of Santana speaking on the subject shortly before the game.




MLB video interviewing Santana before ceremony:  http://atmlb.com/mrL7nU

UPDATE:  Major League Baseball is doing its best to play down Santana's remarks during and after yesterday's game.  They have not released (or permitted the release of) the video of Santana's comments before Sunday's game or the "impromptu news conference" afterwards.  The interview of Santana from before or after Saturday night's ceremony is mixed so low as to be extremely difficult to hear his (more benign, broad) comments.  MLB's website article about the Sunday ceremonies ignores Santana's comments.  For his part, Santana makes no mention of his comments on his website, although he does have an announcement that he was going to receiving/accepting the award.

Here is a link to the Saturday night ceremony, at which Santana accepts the award (from Harry Belafonte).  He speaks at about the 5:40 mark, about how "deeply honored" he is to receive the award. 

Carlos Santana was born in Mexico, and grew up in the San Francisco area (California), before reaching great heights in the music world.

He is scheduled to play concerts in both Phoenix and Tucson in September 2011.

Santana at the ceremony (at about 10:37):  "And I want to say that it's a shame that those in charge (in Georgia) would pass a law - an immigration law - just like Arizona.  The sound that comes to my heart - and my fingers - is the sound that we are all in it together.  We don't leave anybody out.  This is why it's called universal tone."

Afterwards: "It allows me to give voice to the invisible ones."








We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH: Gov. Brewer Offended By "Snub" On Immigration Meeting; President Wanted To Talk About Amnesty, DREAM Act

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was back speaking with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren yesterday, expressing her being "offended" with President Obama's failure to invite her to the White House as part of the meeting to discuss "the broken immigration system".

Van Susteren seemed stuck on the fact that not everyone was invited to the meeting - even though the White House news release makes it obvious that it was going to be a planning session among stakeholders who support a so-called comprehensive reform.  Brewer went along with that, though Van Susteren did say she would like to see a comprehensive solution.



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer On Fox News Last Night; "Keep Us Posted"

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer sat for a 5 minute interview with Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren last night, to discuss yesterday's Ninth Circuit appellate decision upholding a stay keeping most of anti-illegal immigration law SB 1070 from going into effect.

Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne are trying to decide whether to ask for the rest of the Ninth Circuit judges (not "justices", as mentioned in the interview) to review the decision, or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Van Susteren - an attorney-turned-talk-show-host - occasionally tried to coach the governor as to what she thought the best arguments would be.  When Brewer used her tried-and-true line about SB 1070 mirroring federal law - "Are the feds going to change their laws?!?!" - Van Susteren quickly noted that the better argument is that the federal government is not fulfilling their responsibilities and that that is forcing Arizona's "constitutional gesture - an unconstitutional gesture - if the federal government did its job."

Governor Brewer also made another national television appeal for donations to the quasi-governmental legal defense fund that is presumably being used to pay private attorneys to represent the state.  The large and prestigious law firm of Snell & Wilmer (and top attorney John Bouma) represented the Governor in this appeal, and this does not fall under their pro bono policy.  According to the website, the fund has already raised more than $1.5 million.

At the end of the interview, Van Susteren thanked Governor Brewer and said she would follow the case closely.  To which the Governor replied, "Keep us posted."



(Previous reports:  Brewer/Horne news release: http://bit.ly/hdwsnx
Quickie Analysis of Ruling: http://bit.ly/edaWFC )

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH TONIGHT: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Goes To Fox News To React To 9th Circuit Ruling

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will go back to one of her favorite shows to react to today's decision from the 9th Circuit.  At 7:00pm Arizona time, Brewer will be one of the guests on Greta Van Susteren's "On The Record" show, on Fox News Channel.

Brewer (and AG Tom Horne) have already released a joint statement expressing their disapproval of the appellate court's refusal to undo the injunction preventing most of the controversial anti-illegal immigration SB1070 law from going into effect.  The 2-1 decision was released earlier today.

Here is video from Brewer's last Fox News Channel appearance, in February.



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Quickie Analysis Of 9th Circuit Ruling Upholding Stay On Arizona's SB 1070

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals today issued a 2-1 ruling upholding a stay that is keeping the key provisions of last year's controversial SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect in Arizona.  Pending a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. lawsuit against Arizona's law is sent back to U.S. District Court for proceedings on the merits.

The Arizona Republic has posted an excellent summary of the decision, along with a link to the 92-page ruling itself.  A quick review of the ruling prompts this brief analysis:

1) All three judges on the appeals court panel wrote their own opinions.  Judge Richard Paez wrote the main opinion.  Judge John Noonan wrote a brief concurring opinion in which he discussed the importance of the Arizona Legislature's intent in passing the law.  Judge Carlos Bea wrote a lengthy opinion in which he dissented in part but concurred in part.

2) The majority opinion quickly points out that it should only reverse District Court Judge Susan Bolton's decision to grant the injunction if she abused her discretion and applied an erroneous legal standard or on clearly erroneous findings of fact.  It analyzes the preemption principles of each of the four key provisions that Bolton stayed, and found that she properly applied all four.  (In the first stayed section, the majority finds that Arizona's argument contradicted the plain text of the law.)

3) The dissenting opinion agrees that sections 3 and 5(c) (of the law) should be constitutional and therefore should not be enjoined.  Judge Bea agreed with the majority on sections 2 and 6. 

Section 2 requires officers to determine immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion that the stopped person is in the U.S. illegally; section 6 authorized officers to arrest - without warrant - anyone they believe has committed an offense that would make them removable from the country.

4) The U.S. Department of Justice is required to file an answer (in District Court) this week to Arizona's counterclaim.  That deadline is unaffected by today's appellate ruling.




We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake Opens Campaign For Senate Trying To Erase Sharpie Support For Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Well, this should make tomorrow's Congressional delegation group press conference near the border more interesting.  Or, maybe it will be less interesting.  Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6) has given up on his support for comprehensive immigration reform because he believes it is "a dead end".

Tomorrow's press conference with fellow former-comprehensive-immigration-reform-supporter Sen. John McCain and Arizona's three freshman Republican Congresspeople (Paul Gosar, Ben Quayle, David Schweikert) is designed to wrap up their visit to the Arizona-Mexico border.  Where there might have been a diversity of opinions, there will now be unanimity (unless McCain picks that unlikely spot to return to his support for comprehensive reform).  Then again, reporters could choose to challenge Flake's Senate campaign conversion.

(Kudos to Republic reporter Dan Nowicki for also noting the "strikingly similar" language; outgoing Senator Jon Kyl used the same analogy to explain throwing his position into reverse.)



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

FACT CHECK FOLLOW-UP: As U.S. Presents, Today, Gov. Brewer's Anti-UN/Anti-White House/Pro-SB1070 Rant Proved False

It was 6 1/2 months ago that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer teed off on the Obama Administration for mentioning Arizona and the anti-illegal immigration SB1070 in its review of human rights in Arizona.  She decried the innocuous mention as "internationalism run amok and unconstitutional", and promised that Arizona would fight the attempt "to make an international human rights case out of SB1070". 

Today, the United States presents its response to the recommendations made by other countries, and will tell them that it flat out rejects the idea - made by Ecuador and echoed by others - that the U.S. should "Repeal and do not enforce discriminatory and racial laws such as Law SB 1070 of the State of Arizona."  And, that will basically be the end of that.  The report and the response will be approved, there will be no vote on whether the U.S. should be forced to repeal Arizona's law or sanctioned if it does not.  That is it.  An anti-climactic, yet completely predictable, end to something that the governor pretended was going to be an historic capitulation of the United States to the world.

The State Department released its response to the 228 recommendations made by other nations last week to little fanfare.  For most, the Administration expressed support, or rejected the rhetoric while supporting the principle.  However, the Ecuadoran recommendation was one of the 57 that the U.S. is flatly rejecting.  The comment: "(T)he Federal Executive Branch lacks the authority to repeal or refuse to enforce laws enacted at the State level."

The U.S. did respond favorably to other, more general recommendations touching on issues raised in the wake of SB1070.  For example, Guatemala, Bolivia, Mexico, Uruguay urged the U.S. to attempt to restrain state initiatives which encourage racial profiling and/or criminalizing people who cross the border without permission.  The U.S. response expressed support for the principle expressed in those recommendations in a very interesting way:

We will continue to both conduct human rights training and awareness campaigns and, where appropriate, bring civil or criminal actions regarding racial profiling, police brutality, and excessive use of force, and other actionable civil rights violations against immigrants. While unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a crime, and the federal government does not support state initiatives that aim to criminalize mere status, we cannot support the parts related to the “criminalization” of migrants, as certain immigration offenses are subject to criminal sanction, e.g., illegal entry. (emphasis added)

In August, we fact checked Gov. Brewer's letter and concluded that it was "completely misleading".  And, unless something completely unexpected occurs, today's proceedings will support that conclusion and prove to be a predictable anti-climax to the Governor's UN-and-Obama-bashing rant.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Sen. John McComish On Why He Opposes Birthright Citizenship Bills and Their Possible Outcome; Arizona Has "Greater Issues To Deal With"

A couple of weeks ago, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee held a lengthy hearing on two bills that would address the issue of the 14th Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution) and birthright citizenship.  Eventually, sponsor Sen. Ron Gould (R-LD3) pulled the bills from the committee once he realized that at least two of the Republicans were going to vote them down.  He brought them over to the more friendly Appropriations Committee, where they were approved yesterday, pushing them toward the Floor.

The question of what happened in the Judiciary Committee is still relevant, as it may give some insight into the future of these bills.  Arizona's Politics sat down and spoke with Sen. John McComish (R-LD20) last week about his role in the proceedings.  McComish is one of the five GOP Senators on the 8-person committee; Sen. Adam Driggs (R-LD11) - an immigration attorney - had made it clear through his questioning of the proponents' witness that he was disinclined to vote for the bills.

At some point in the long hearing, Gould asked McComish where he stood.  “I never hid what my conclusion was," said McComish. "The sponsor asked me towards the end of discussion, and I told him. At that point, he decided to hold the bill(s).”

When asked why he decided to oppose the bills, McComish rattled off a few factors: 

“There are multiple reasons. It is the settled constitutional law of the land. Adjudicated by the U.S. Supreme Court…. I have read the debate on the floor (of the U.S. Congress) in the 1860’s, and it is very clear that the intention was any newborn I the U.S. is a citizen....  ‘Under the jurisdiction’ means just that… subject to our laws.”

McComish noted that he looked up the Latin, while another Senator looked it up in a 19th century dictionary, both looking for the intent that those who passed the 14th Amendment might have meant. 

McComish realizes that even though it has been settled constitutional law for a long time, birthright citizenship may not be the best policy for the United States in this day and age. Nevertheless, “if it is time, let somebody else do it. Arizona has had its time in the drum; we don’t need to be in the lead on this. We have greater issues to deal with, such as the economy and the deficit.”

Finally, McComish predicted that the bills would be moved forward by the Appropriations Committee.  But, as far as the eventual outcome, he predicts that “it will be very close. There is one scenario where it could be 15-15.”



We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Interviewed On Fox News, Pleads For Funds To Pay The Attorneys

Before Egypt's President stepped down (or, stepped down again) this morning, and before one of the Fox News reporters referred to the past couple of weeks as being a "Mexican standoff", Fox News hosted Arizona Governor Jan Brewer for an interview.

The Governor ran down the basis for the counterclaim filed in the S.B. 1070 case yesterday, and then noted that Arizona taxpayers are not paying for the legal action because of the Border Security Fund that she (and the Legislature) set up last year to accept private (unlimited) donations.  She also noted that the fund has already spent $1.2 million dollars - presumably in legal fees.

This re-raises a question we mentioned yesterday during the news conference: now that the Arizona Attorney General and his office are actively involved in this case, will monies from the Governor's fund be used to reimburse the AG's office for their time spent.  Or, is the $1.5 million (according to the website) or $3.5 million (according to Brewer yesterday) raised at the KeepAZSafe site only going to be used to pay legal fees for the private, outside counsel?


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's Announcement of State Lawsuit Against Federal Governement

Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced that the state is filing a counterclaim against the U.S. government for "their failure to secure the border and enforce our laws".   (Sure, the pronouns make it appear that the federal government should be enforcing Arizona's laws.)  Attorney General Tom Horne indicates that the basis for the claims is that the U.S. has failed in its constitutional requirement to "protect Arizona from invasion."

The counterclaim (i.e. basically, a lawsuit against a party who has already sued you) is being filed in the federal case(s) that have challenged last year's anti-illegal immigration SB1070 law.

Brewer indicates that the costs of the counterclaim will be paid out of her "Keep AZ Safe Fund".  Whether that will include reimbursing the Attorney General's Office for their expenses remains to be seen. 


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

WATCH: What Would YOU Do? ABC Airing Undercover Segment From Tucson On Racial Profiling; Preview/Teaser

Tomorrow night, ABC News is airing an undercover segment of "What Would You Do?" that was taped in a Tucson restaurant and focuses on racial profiling in the wake of Arizona's international attention resulting from last year's passage of SB1070.

The one-hour Primetime will air at 8:00p.m. on KNXV (Channel 15) in Phoenix and KGUN (Channel 9) in Tucson.

ABC has put up a news story detailing what happened when host John Quinones went undercover and also hired an actor to portray a White security guard who starts asking people for ID.  Non-Hispanic patrons confront the security guard/actor.

The video that ABC apparently has up on its site does not seem to be working properly, so the teaser below is taken from the Newsbusters' website that has already proclaimed the report as an example of liberal media stretching the boundaries of journalism.  The organization puts up the transcript from this morning's tease on Good Morning, America. 

(Interestingly, GMA host George Stephanoupoulos' Tweet on the subject links to the Newsbusters article and not ABC's own.)





I cannot help but wonder what the results of their undercover operation would have been if they (a) had tried it in Phoenix, and (b) if they had tried it at a restaurant that does not serve great Mexican food.

We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Two Senators DO Propose Constitutional Amendment To Supercede 14th Amendment's "Birthright Citizenship"

Two United States Senators - Republicans David Vitter (LA) and Rand Paul (KY) - have announced that they have filed a resolution proposing to amend the United States Constitution to ensure that babies born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship.

Earlier today, Arizona's Politics discussed the current legislative efforts - at the state and the national level - to remove "birthright citizenship" from babies born in the United States.  Our conclusion was that the efforts which fail to amend the Constitution are likely to fail in the courts.

Vitter and Paul apparently reached the same conclusion.  They filed their joint resolution on Tuesday (SJR2) and, while the text is not yet available on Congress' website, the Senators' news release indicates where they are headed with it.

The Senators state that their proposed amendment "would amend the Constitution so that a person born in the United States to illegal aliens does not automatically gain citizenship unless at least one parent is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen."

No other co-sponsors are listed at this point.






We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

No Arizona Representatives Co-Sponsoring Bill To Change Birthright Citizenship/Anchor Babies

No members of the Arizona Congressional delegation have signed on to co-sponsor Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) bill to change U.S. law - under the Constitution and the statutes - to restrict "birthright citizenship".  As discussed in the previous post, King is attempting to work on the second clause in the sentence in the 14th Amendment by stating that babies born to two illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

King introduced H.R. 140 earlier this month, and has signed on 45 co-sponsors.  To date, not one member of Arizona's delegation has signed on to King's effort and none of them are on King's subcommittee that will schedule a hearing on it.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce's Nightmare Spam Act: "For Just $250", He'll "FAX Every Member of Congress and Obama Every Day for 5 Days"

It is not every day that you get an e-mail from the President of the Arizona State Senate, offering to help me petition Congress.  But, that is just what Russell Pearce (R-LD18) and his anti-illegal immigration group sent me (and the more than 800,000 people*1 presumably on their e-mail lists) yesterday.

Pearce is not only the President of the State Senate and the "Tea Party Senate President", but is also the "Honorary National Co-Chairman of BanAmnestyNow.com".  In that role, he signed and blasted out an e-mail with the subject line "Fax Congress and Help Me Secure the Border." Along with the usual rundown of the battles he has won and is fighting (and the proven-false statistic thrown in), and the request for money to keep fighting ("...to protect American and American families."), Pearce repeatedly asks his supporters to click on the link to "FAX Congress".   (text of e-mail below the jump)

Click on the link, and you are sent to B.A.N.'s "Contribution" section, and a page to "Send Blast Faxes To Congress", for the stated purpose of "Stop(ping) Congress From Passing the DREAM Act!"  It is a convenient way to donate to B.A.N. while letting them do the hard work of exercising your Constitutional right of petitioning Congress and the President.

The options are enticing and run the gamut from hitting just the Senators from one party or the other ($19), all 100 Senators ($29), all 435 Representatives ($99), and all 535 MOC's plus President Obama ($119).  All well and good, and a fine way to exercise our free market rights and our free speech rights simultaneously.

But, wait.  B.A.N. offers this "SPECIAL- FAX Every Member of Congress and Obama Every Day for 5 Days - Let them know you mean business for just $250".  That's right.  Because nothing lets a Congressperson know you mean business like placing your name in the "From" line with Pearce, Arpaio, Tancredo, Buchanan and McCaffrey and sending the same generic message over and over and over (and over and over).  (Let's not even discuss the propriety of a State Senate President and a tax-exempt political organization adding to our national debt by wasting Congressional resources.)

By the way, the proposed fax does not explicitly address the "DREAM Act" that must be stopped.  Instead, it is a laundry list that includes "opposition to the dangerous and divisive amnesty schemes proposed and promoted by Barack Obama and others in Washington."  It requests the recipients' to "join us in our mission to save our great nation."

Pearce's e-mail seems to suggest that the pay-for-faxes and contributions help him and B.A.N. to travel "to the recent court hearings in liberal San Francisco" to "defend SB-1070 in the courts" and to pass similar laws in all 50 states. 

It is hard to figure out where the line is drawn between Pearce's legitimate private life fundraising for a tax-exempt organization (which he may or may not receive support from), his political campaign committee's activities, and his government-paid expenses.  For example, it would appear that Pearce's campaign committee reimbursed Pearce on November 5 for airfare and lodging, in the amount of $551.17.  (The hearings in "liberal San Francisco" took place the week before.)

The Arizona Senate President using his position and prestige to solicit monies for a massive Congress-bombarding operation would seem to be a major effort at erasing those lines altogether.

(NOW how much would you pay for a fax? BUT WAIT, here's more:)

BONUS POINTS:
1) Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio removed himself as Pearce's "Honorary Co-Chair" of B.A.N. last October after B.A.N. sent out an e-mail over Arpaio's signature calling for an army of volunteers to monitor polling places.  However, Arpaio's name remains on the fax that Pearce is hawking, and is still all over the website.
2) Pearce sticks to his guns;  however, this time his "guns" are false statistics.  His e-mail repeats the oft-discredited statistic that "more than 9,100 Americans are killed each year by illegal aliens."  Arizona Republic's Fact Check thoroughly demonstrated that Pearce and Iowa Rep. Steve King could not validate their "fact". (And Arizona's Politics took the Republic to task for claiming that theevidence was "inconclusive"; Pearce's claim deserved - and deserves - a "double F" for False Fact.)
3) Pearce's e-mail to stop the Dream Act came mere hours before Obama mentioned two specific immigration-related measures in the State of the Union address: the Dream Act and the STAPLE Act.  The latter bill was re-introduced in Congress the day before by Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake (R-CD6).
4) Pearce and his B.A.N. buddies really need to be more careful and proofread and/or update their appeals.  Not only do they bounce back and forth and back again about the main topic, but they have not even updated their Senate numbers to reflect the gains that the GOP made in November's election.
5) What is up with Pearce self-identifying as the "Tea Party Senate President"?

More, In-Depth Analysis Of Today's Oral Argument On Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law

Following up on my earlier post of the official transcript of today's oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Arizona employer sanctions law - as well as the Associated Press analysis of the arguments - here is a wonderful firsthand account from what has become the definitive news source on the Supreme Coutr: SCOTUSBlog.com.

Lyle Denniston believes it is virtually certain that Arizona's law will be upheld, either on a 5-3 or 4-4 vote .(Justice Kagan recused herself due to her previous position as Solicitor General.)  If it is a tie vote, the law is upheld because it does not overturn the 9th Circuit's decision, but it cannot be used as a "national rule".

Denniston believes that Justice Kennedy is the possible difference between precedent status and the sister-kissing decision.  He finds Justices Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor  prepared to vote to reverse. (He believes the latter might need some persuading.)

Barring whatever NPR's Nina Totenberg files this afternoon, this is likely to give you the best "you are there" perspective on this morning's arguments.  At least until the court releases the audio.


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

You Be The Justice; READ: Transcript of Oral Argument Before Supreme Court On Arizona's Employer Sanctions Law

Today, the Supreme Court (of the U.S.) heard oral arguments on the legal issues surrounding Arizona's employer sanctions law - the law that permits the suspension of business licenses of companies knowingly hiring workers in the United States illegally.  The Associated Press reporter who attended the argument concluded (in his or her lede) that the Court "appeared likely" to uphold the law.

I have not yet had a chance to review the transcripts to see if I reach the same conclusion.  But, I know that most who occasionally view this blog are interested in this case and in checking out the transcript.  Here is a link to the Supreme Court's official (subject to final review) transcript. 

Although the PDF is 68 pages long, (1) it reads quickly, as most depositions/transcripts/etc do; and (2) starting on page 57 of the document is a sort of "word index", which allows you to quickly find the page and line number that you might be looking for. For example, if you wanted to find questions asked by Justice Breyer, look up "Breyer".  (Court-watcher unsurprising fun fact: Justice Thomas is not indexed.)

If you find things that you think the rest of us should check out, please comment below and we can start our own useful index!


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.

Did The Pope Read New Times' Cover Article On "Grinding Justice"?; Listen to NPR, Perhaps?; Vatican Calls For Suspension Of "Operation Streamline" At U.N. Forum

Earlier this afternoon, we reported on the draft report on the U.S.'s Universal Periodic Review (on human rights), and the recommendation that Arizona's S.B. 1070 anti-illegal immigration law be repealed or not enforced.  In preparing that story, we came across the following item of interest to Arizonans.

Hot on the heels of an extensive cover article by the Phoenix New Times and a three-part report on NPR about "Operation Streamline", the Vatican has used a United Nations forum to ask the United States government to suspend the program which tags captured illegal immigrants with criminal convictions.

Award-winning journalists have been reporting on the U.S. Border Patrol's "Operation Streamline" in the last several weeks.  Ted Robbins aired a three-part report on NPR's "Morning Edition" in September.  Stephen Lemons then published an extensive investigation on October 21 into how "Operation Streamline" was operating to push many illegal immigrants through the justice system. 

Fifteen days later, the United States was fielding compliments and complaints - questions and suggestions - about the status of human rights in the U.S. from the world community.  (Arizona's S.B. 1070 anti-illegal immigration law was one of the subjects brought up more than once.)

In the third segment of Friday's "interactive" session, a representative from the Catholic Church took the microphone to raise concerns about the U.S. program.  As the (draft) report - which came out today - states, "The Holy See noted that 'Operation Streamline' against irregular migrants should be suspended" while the U.S. debate about immigrants and their rights continues.

(Here is a link to watch the Vatican's statement and recommendations.)


We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com. Thanks.