Rep. Giffords shot, judge and 5 others killed at Tucson event
U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot point-blank in the head on Saturday at a northwest-side grocery store, but surgeons say they are "very optimistic" about her recovery.
Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer's office is confirming federal Judge John Roll was among the dead.
Sheriff's authorities said there were six dead, including a child, as well as 18 wounded.
Giffords, who is in critical condition, is out of surgery at University Medical Center, said Dr. Peter Rayle, a UMC surgeon. The bullet passed cleanly out her brain, exiting her head.
Rayle said she was following commands, which is a good sign.
The shooting occurred at a Safeway supermarket where Giffords was holding one of her regular "Congress on Your Corner" events, which allows her to speak directly with constituents in her district.
A tearful U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata of Tucson, meanwhile, did not know why Roll was at the event.
"It's devastating to the courts and to me," Zapata said. "We've been friends for 25 years and he was a tremendous judge and a tremendous person."
The gunman has been identified as 22-year-old Jared Loughner, according to The Associated Press.
The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party."
Which brings us to Sarah Palin, who is trying to backtrack, after being the leader of fomenting the atmosphere that breeds DOMESTIC TERRORISTS like this guy.
She tried to scrub her website, but it always lives in cyberspace.
Ahhh... nothing like the sights and sounds of Racist Republican policies falling apart. And so it begins. Round one goes to the sane & rational. But the Right vows to fight on.
PHOENIX — A federal judge stepped into the fight over Arizona's immigration law at the last minute Wednesday, blocking the heart of the measure and defusing a confrontation between police and thousands of activists that had been building for months.
Coming just hours before the law was to take effect, the ruling isn't the end.
It sets up a lengthy legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court — ensuring that a law that reignited the immigration debate, inspired similar measures nationwide, created fodder for political campaigns and raised tensions with Mexico will stay in the spotlight.
Protesters who gathered at the state Capitol and outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City cheered when they heard the news. The governor, the law's authors and anti-illegal immigration groups vowed to fight on.
"It's a temporary bump in the road," Gov. Jan Brewer said.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will now have to decide a question as old as the nation itself: Does federal law trump state law? She indicated in her ruling that the federal government's case has a good chance at succeeding.
The Clinton appointee said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
Key points
Bolton delayed provisions that required immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, she blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants for crimes that can lead to deportation.
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.
It looks like this will drag on for quite some time, and will eventually be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was full of problems and had measures that were unconstitutional, even after the Arizona legislature tried to clean up their own mess by changing the text.
Related Links
See our previous postings on the Arizona Immigration Law here and here.
Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White
This is America, in 2010, and there’s a dozen more states and endless white-trash municipalities ready to Officially Adopt this same Official Racist Insanity.
From the Arizona Republic:
A group of artists has been asked to lighten the faces of children depicted in a giant public mural at a Prescott school. The project’s leader says he was ordered to lighten the skin tone after complaints about the children’s ethnicity ….
R.E. Wall, director of Prescott’s Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town’s most prominent intersections.
“We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars,” Wall said. “We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics).”
The children depicted on the mural, as we mentioned before but feel compelled to repeat, are little kids who go to the school — “a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott. Wall said thousands of town residents volunteered or donated to the project.”
And these children, for the past several months as this happy mural encouraging “green transportation” was being painted by local artists, have been treated to the city of Prescott’s finest citizens driving by and yelling “Nigger” and “Spic” at this school wall painted with pictures of the children who attend the school. And this has been encouraged by a city councilman, Steve Blair, who uses his local radio talk show to rile up these people and demand the mural be destroyed.
And now the faces are being painted white, “because of the controversy.”
Let that sit around in your brain for awhile.
Let's make this clear: they are erasing the presence of STUDENTS THAT GO TO THE SCHOOL.
These are Black and Brown children THAT GO TO THE SCHOOL.
I say let em secede. Cut off Federal funding to these jackasses. As a matter of fact. They can have the South if they want it. Can't stand the South. Never liked it. (although I am not ready to give up Florida or Texas.... two of my adoptive home States). I would be ready to fight for Texas or Florida. But the rest, they can have. lol
Well, when Arizona Law SB 1070 passed, a whole lotta Black folks were like, ' good', because they have resentments towards the Latino community.
Let me make this clear. I believe I'm to right of the rest of the FP bloggers when it comes to immigration. I don't only dislike illegal immigration, I'm not too fond of legal immigration. The whole ' nation of immigrants' thing - try it on someone whose ancestors weren't brought here stacked up in the hull of slave ships.
But, for me, this wasn't about immigration. Even Rev. Al admitted that on The Ed Show: he was like, ' yeah, I guess we gotta do immigration reform, but that's not why I'm against this bill'.
Rev. Al saw it as I did:
the attempt to CODIFY RACIAL PROFILING INTO LAW.
There's a Black person, more likely, a Black Man, racially profiled EVERY DAY in this country.
The only way that we've remotely been able to fight this, is because it was ILLEGAL.
Now, if this happens when it's ILLEGAL, what do you think is going to happen if they make it LEGAL?
Well, I'm not willing to find out.
IS there a Black person out there that thinks that doesn't recognize THAT WE ARE NEXT ON THE LIST?
Please point to me something in the history of Black folk and Law Enforcement in America that could make me conclude anything OTHER than this.
So, it's opposition to SB1070 for the selfish reason of SELF-PRESERVATION for me.
But, you couldn't possibly have thought that they were going to stop with SB 1070, did you?
The Arizona legislature modified their racist and unconstitutional immigration law earlier this month because they knew that the original law wouldn't hold up in Federal court. The move was made in anticipation of a mountain of lawsuits that would have likely made the legislation null and void in the Federal appeals courts.
The original law would have allowed (and in many cases required) police in Arizona to use an immigration check as the reason to make initial contact with an individual. Now the law states that officers can check immigration status as a consequence of some other violation of the law or some other contact, which could be just about anything. The provisions in the modification, for the most part, always existed. This is currently part of normal police practice across the country. Police officers already contact immigration authorities to report suspects who may be undocumented, when the issue comes up as a consequence of other violations of the law. So if that's the case, why have a law that codifies what is already the normal practice? Because that was not the original intent of the law. Arizona is trying to be slick with this move.
The changes will help the State defend against legal challenges, and will make the law tougher to kill in the courts. However, the law is still racist and unconstitutional. The law will still require some level of racial profiling. It still violates equal protection rights. It would still require a certain segment of the population to show proof of citizenship, while not requiring the same from others. The only way that this law could be constitutional, would be if everyone in Arizona were required to carry proof of citizenship and all were scrutinized equally. Gov. Brewer herself tried to claim that she didn't know what an immigrant looked like (in an attempt to blunt criticism.... and to try to show that the law would be applied to everyone....of course that's a lie. Of course this whole issue is about Mexicans). It is inherently racist...even with the changes....the changes only lessen the degree of the racism. The law also tries to trump Federal laws and Federal jurisdiction, another problem for Arizona as it tries to come up with a defense. Unfortunately those who want to challenge the law will have a steeper hill to climb.
The modifications were aimed at fixing some of the 4th amendment problems. But the problems with the 14th amendment are still there. Fortunately, this law was so horribly bad to begin with, that there are a number of routes to kill it. The modifications only plug one hole in the dam. This is why I believe the law was never really meant to be practical. I think it had more to do with Arizona wanting to send a message to Washington.
The president of FAIR (Federation of American Immigration Reform), Dan Stein, was on the Rachel Maddow Show. It was brutal.
Because of this interview (read: tussle; read: battle; read: slaughter), we have a new word: "Steined"... as in, "You've been Steined by Rachel Maddow".
Is Arizona trying to secede? It looks like they are doing just about everything they can to send that message.
Their symbolic declaration of war will be Governor Jan Brewer signing new immigration legislation into law that would basically legalize racial profiling and discrimination, by wiping out the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as a generation worth of civil rights laws. Of course it wouldn't wipe out the Constitution...but it would basically mean that Arizona would ignore Federal laws and precedent. If the law in Arizona is allowed to stand...then other States could do the same....undermining the Federal Government.
The initiative would require local law enforcement (who are busy enough...and understaffed enough as is) to enforce Federal immigration laws...by seeking out those who are potentially in the U.S. illegally. It's essentially a "show us your papers" law. Those who can't prove citizenship would presumably have to face further questioning.... further investigation and detention.
Just imagine for a minute that you are an Hispanic American...living in Arizona...and one day you decide to go for a walk or you want to take your dog to the park a block away. You may decide that you don't want to take your wallet because you aren't going to the store & won't need money...and you are coming right back. For the sake of comfort, you just don't need your wallet or purse. While in the park... the police decide to do what is commonly known as a 'pedestrian check' because you 'fit the profile'. They already suspect something is wrong...because they have approached you. Now when they ask you for your papers and you tell them that you don't have any ID with you, you can be detained and questioned...and you will even be subject to arrest if your story doesn't fly. Better not have a heavy Spanish accent. Is this America? Are Hispanics (or any other group) expected to just get used to being stopped and frisked? Police can check your name and verify drivers licenses without the actual ID.... but what about those legal residents and citizens from out of State? What about legitimate residents who don't happen to drive and don't have a State issued ID card? There are too many variables that the law doesn't seem to address. You can't subject one group to this kind of scrutiny... it just wouldn't work.
It seems as though this Country sinks a little deeper into the crazy quicksand with each passing day. I had to pinch myself when I heard this story.
Of course as soon as this nonsense is signed into law (if the Governor agrees with the nutters and in fact signs it) it would face a Federal injunction within hours. I almost want to see the law go into effect...because I want the nutters to see just how crazy they are. It would be a good lesson for them about the Constitution and how the Country is supposed to work. I want them to see just how fast this law would be knocked down by the Federal Courts.
I'm all for the enforcement of immigration laws. However, I think that the States and the Federal government should know their roles. There has to be a better way to deal with the issue without endangering Constitutional protections for Hispanic citizens. This law was a simple-minded approach to a delicate and sometimes complex problem. I'm pretty sure that if this legislation becomes law, it won't last for more than a few days (if that). It would take a Hell of a loophole for it to survive. From what I have read and heard about the legislation so far, it wouldn't last more than a couple of days. Its intent doesn't seem to be practical. Instead, it seems to be intended as a symbolic gesture designed to send a message to the Obama Administration.
One problem that this might create is a situation where Obama feels the need to tackle immigration reform this year. This is exactly what the Republicans want...and it may be part of their whole strategy. If Obama takes the bait, it could spell big trouble for Democrats. This is exactly the kind of fight that the Republicans would want going into the midterms. The majority of Americans support tougher enforcement of immigration laws....and Republicans have already framed immigration reform as an attempt to give undocumented individuals amnesty and a free pass. It's a losing battle for Democrats.
Obama should steer clear of any major overhaul of immigration, at least in his first term. If he gets a second term... then this might be an issue that he could try to tackle. This is my view...not because I think it is better to play politics.... but because after looking at the issue it seems clear to me that comprehensive "immigration reform" simply isn't doable. It's not a realistic goal, at least not in the current political and social environment. Why should President Obama waste energy and what little political capital he has left on something that isn't achievable, especially when there are so many other things that the Country needs to deal with? It makes no sense. It is not the kind of battle that he can fight and win...especially not in a Country that is so politically and racially polarized (thanks to the Republican Party and its Tea Party wing). This issue could derail just about everything else in Obama's agenda if he decides to push for any major reforms. The fight over immigration would be bigger than the fight over Health care - exponentially bigger. Do we really want to go back to that? This is exactly why I don't believe that Democrats in the Congress will touch it. The issue is too radioactive. But then again...the Dems in Congress aren't exactly the brightest people in world. They have done incredibly stupid things before.
A Republican - George W. Bush - tried this a few years ago...and failed miserably after his ideas were flatly rejected by his own party. What in the Hell makes anyone think that comprehensive immigration reform is achievable for Obama? Sure....he managed to get a watered down Health Care Bill passed...but Health Care Reform was not nearly as partisan an issue as immigration is. On Health Care...the Country was and is basically split down the middle. On the issue of immigration... Republicans are much more energized...and emotional, and support for tougher enforcement leans heavily in favor of the Conservative position...although this is due, in part, to a lack of understanding about the problems that immigration reform could fix.
The nutters didn't stop with just this immigration initiative. They also have legislation that would require proof of citizenship for any Presidential candidate. Those who don't provide proof of citizenship won't be put on the State ballot. Of course this is aimed at President Obama.
Sometime over the next few days we will know if Governor Jan Brewer will sign this legislation into law.
"The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." -- W.E.B. DuBois (1922)
Posts
