As Obama’s support circles the drain, the Arizona immigration law’s skyrockets.
Public support for Arizona’s controversial new immigration law has increased slightly, a new CBS News poll shows, with 57 percent of Americans characterizing the law as “about right” in the way it addresses the issue of illegal immigration.
Support for the measure increased five points since May. Since then, the Justice Department has filed suit against the law, claiming that it usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.
Voters by a two-to-one margin oppose the U.S. Justice Department’s decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Sixty-one percent (61%), in fact, favor passage of a law like Arizona’s in their own state, up six points from two months ago.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 28% of voters agree that the Justice Department should challenge the state law. Fifty-six percent (56%) disagree and another 16% are not sure.
These findings are unchanged from late May when the possibility of such a challenge first surfaced in news reports.
Eighty-six percent (86%) of all Likely Voters say the immigration issue is at least somewhat important to how they will vote for Congress this November, with 55% who say it is Very Important.
This is going to be a killer for many Democrats in November, but Barry & Co. couldn’t care less. They have their eye on 2012 and must pander to the La Raza crowd for turnout and cash.
Johnsen was an outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies which made her a dream candidate to head up the office in Eric Holder’s Justice Department. Now she must remain in the dreaded private sector.
The White House on Friday announced that it was withdrawing the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, citing lengthy delays in getting Johnsen’s nomination through the U.S. Senate.
Johnsen had gained next-to-no support among Senate Republicans, largely because of her criticism of the Bush administration’s terrorist interrogations. She had headed the Office of Legal Counsel in the Clinton administration on an acting basis in 1997 and 1998.
The Office of Legal Counsel post is considered one of the most important jobs in the Justice Department, because the office assists the attorney general in providing legal advice to the president. In a statement, White House spokesman Ben LaBolt blamed the demise of the Johnsen nomination on Senate Republicans.
“Her credentials are exemplary and her commitment to the rule of law has been proven time and again, but it is now clear that Senate Republicans will not allow her to be confirmed,” LaBolt said.
Perhaps she can get a job defending Gitmo detainees. That seems to be all the rage for lefist lawyers these days.
Judging from the fact that 58% of Americans wanted the undies bomber waterboarded, I think Senate Republicans are only representing the wishes of the people – unlike the Democrats.
The decision only applies to contracts that were signed prior to Congress’ vote to ban government funding for the group. Its author focuses on the phrase “provided to” as his basis for the decision.
Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike such words as “obligate” and “expend.”
Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of funds to Acorn was required to satisfy existing contractual obligations.
Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts.
Naturally. Who knows how many existing contracts are in place or when they expire, but until they do ACORN will continue to receive taxpayer funds for nefarious activities such as providing guidance in obtaining loans for child sex rings and money laundering.
Update: Darrell Issa blasts Justice Department’s decision
But Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said “the bipartisan intent of Congress was clear — no more federal dollars should flow to ACORN.”
“It is telling that this administration continues to look for every excuse possible to circumvent the intent of Congress,” Issa said in a statement. “Taxpayers should not have to continue subsidizing a criminal enterprise that helped Barack Obama get elected president. The politicization of the Justice Department to payback one of the president’s political allies is shameful and amounts to nothing more than old-fashioned cronyism.”