{"id":2628,"date":"2010-10-11T14:27:41","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T18:27:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/?p=2628"},"modified":"2010-11-24T09:46:26","modified_gmt":"2010-11-24T14:46:26","slug":"fox-fuels-fire-in-arizona-immigration-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/2010\/10\/fox-fuels-fire-in-arizona-immigration-action.html","title":{"rendered":"Fox fuels fire in Arizona immigration action"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_2632\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2632\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"http:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/10\/AngryMob-by-Robert-Couse-Baker-on-Flickr.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-2632\" title=\"AngryMob (by Robert Couse-Baker on Flickr)\" src=\"http:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/10\/AngryMob-by-Robert-Couse-Baker-on-Flickr.jpg\" alt=\"AngryMob\" width=\"300\" height=\"210\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-2632\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photo by Robert Couse-Baker on Flickr<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Megyn Kelly and Monica Crowley of Fox News rip into the Obama administration over ten Latin American countries being allowed to join in on Mexico&#8217;s &#8220;friend of the court&#8221; brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Justice Department&#8217;s challenge to Arizona&#8217;s SB-1070 immigration law.\u00a0 The video of the news story is available on YouTube under the title, &#8220;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ZQTOqXC0qYs\" target=\"_blank\">YOU MUST WATCH THIS: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW<\/a>.&#8221;\u00a0 It might be expected the person posting this was editorializing a bit, but if you watch the video, that pretty much captures the sentiment of the news report.<\/p>\n<p>That sentiment is not lost on viewers who are apoplectic over this &#8220;shocking&#8221; revelation.\u00a0 Comments on a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/video\/video.php?v=160847063945081\" target=\"_blank\">Facebook page<\/a> (Facebook login required) where this video was posted give a good sense of the ire this video is rousing.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<ul>\n<li><em>&#8230;This is Obama&#8217;s attempt to bring in International Law to the picture.<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>dismiss ALL the Justices at the 9th  circuit&#8230;..they are Communist and are traitors against the United  States! we pay their salary&#8230;..yes this is offensive and is  treason&#8230;..by every one of the 9th circuit.CRAZY<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>It is NOT stunning it is a disgrace.  Obama MUST  be IMPEACHED .  Why are we not insisting on his immediate removal from  office??  The very countries that are chiming in about AZ are amongst  the most cruelest in their treatment of illegals.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>While the core facts of this report are not in dispute, the outrage over this happening is entirely manufactured.\u00a0 The notion that this is a treasonous action by the court or constitutes collusion between Obama and foreign governments is simply untrue.\u00a0 Yet the facts are being twisted to fuel the furor of people who are already inclined to see conspiracy.\u00a0 Were this being done just by random Facebook commenters, then while disturbing, it&#8217;s well within their rights of expression to spout their opinions without regard to the truthfulness of the assertions.\u00a0 But Fox News bills itself as a news organization.\u00a0 It is expected to be, and trusted to be, factually accurate.\u00a0 It may have an editorial bias, but outright distortion and manipulation of information should be out of bounds.\u00a0 Apparently it&#8217;s not.<\/p>\n<p>In the case at hand, the Obama administration is following the due process for challenging a state law as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the American system of jurisprudence.\u00a0 Some may disagree that this law should be challenged, but that&#8217;s a policy disagreement, not a basis for impeachment.\u00a0 The Justice department filed suit against the state of Arizona, and the courts are supposed to rule on the merits of the case.\u00a0 That&#8217;s the way it works.<\/p>\n<p>It is not at all unusual for interested parties to file so-called amicus or &#8220;friend of the court&#8221; briefs to express their opinions on the matter.\u00a0 There are many parties the court has <a href=\"http:\/\/volokh.com\/2010\/10\/07\/ninth-circuit-lets-foreign-governments-file-amicus-briefs-in-challenge-to-arizonas-immigration-laws\/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29\" target=\"_blank\">agreed to accept briefs from<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>(1) The United Mexican States; (2) Legal Momentum; (3) Arizona Cities of  Flagstaff, Tolleson, San Luis, and Somerton; (4) City of Tucson; (5)  The County of Santa Clara, California; (6) Anti-Defamation League; (7)  Friendly House Plaintiffs; (8) League of United Latin American Citizens,  National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Chicanos Por  La Causa, Inc., Magdalena Schwartz, Joseph David Sandoval, and David  Salgado; (9) National Council of La Raza, United States Hispanic Chamber  of Commerce, The Hispanic National Bar Association And Los Abogados  Hispanic Bar Association; and (10) American Immigration Lawyers  Association. The following governments have moved for leave to join the  Amicus brief of The United Mexican States: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,  Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>There is nothing about this process which means the court has to listen to any of the parties&#8217; opinions.\u00a0 It is just giving everyone a chance to speak.\u00a0 Arizona&#8217;s Governor Jan Brewer is arguing that this is strictly an internal matter, and interests outside the U.S. should not even be allowed to be heard.\u00a0 But <a href=\"http:\/\/volokh.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/10\/mexicoamicusbrief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">Mexico&#8217;s brief<\/a> (PDF) makes a case for why SB-1070 is not strictly internal.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><em>I. SB 1070\u2019s Intrusion in International Affairs Impedes International  Relations and Bilateral Collaboration in Cross-Border Issues<br \/>\nA. SB 1070 Will Severely Hinder Mexico-Arizona Trade and Tourism<br \/>\nB. SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Collaborative Border Management<br \/>\nC. SB 1070 Obstructs International and Border Collaboration to Combat Drug Issues<br \/>\nII. SB 1070 Poses a Risk of Harassment by Law Enforcement to Mexican Citizens<br \/>\nIII. SB 1070 Dangerously Leads to a Patchwork of Laws that Impede Effective and Consistent Diplomatic Relations<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Arizona has not provided any specifics with regard to how this law could possibly be implemented without impacting legal immigrants and legal Hispanic visitors to Arizona.\u00a0 Therefore, independent of the law&#8217;s impact on U.S. citizens, the law will likely effect citizens of Latin American countries, and this could reasonably have an influence on U.S. relations with these countries.\u00a0 That does not mean the interest of these foreign countries and their citizens should or will trump the interest of this country.\u00a0 That is not the test for filing a brief.\u00a0 The test is only that the brief come from someone with a direct interest in the case&#8217;s outcome.\u00a0 That test passes.<\/p>\n<p>Much is also made of the Justice department&#8217;s agreement to allow the briefs to be filed.\u00a0 What isn&#8217;t stated is that the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/rules\/frap\/rules.html#Rule29\" target=\"_blank\">Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure<\/a> require the court to seek permission from the parties involved, or they may assent themselves.\u00a0 In accordance with the rules, the Ninth Circuit Court asked the Justice Department and the State of Arizona for consent.\u00a0 Justice said yes, and Arizona said no.\u00a0 Then, as almost always happens, the court allowed the brief anyway.\u00a0 In other words, asking the parties for permission was a courtesy only.\u00a0 The court routinely assents to requests to file briefs, and as a result, the federal government routinely rubber-stamps a yes on the request.\u00a0 This wasn&#8217;t a conspiracy, just court business as usual.<\/p>\n<p>But the conspiracy theory was already rolling along.\u00a0 On the Facebook page, one commenter claims, &#8220;THERE IS SOMETHING THEY DID NOT MENTION&#8230;.THE  9TH CIRCUIT AND THE FED GOVERNMENT WANT TO BLOCK THE TESTIMONY OF THE   THE STATE SENATOR WHO AUTHORED SB1070!!!  So, we have 11 Foreign  countries weighing in on a STATE  Sovereignty issue&#8230; bu&#8230;t the STATE SENATOR WHO WROTE IT&#8230; is Persona non-grata!!!&#8221;\u00a0 Not true.\u00a0 The <a href=\"http:\/\/azstarnet.com\/news\/local\/border\/article_b8dcbadb-b4f0-5ed1-b339-81cc25dbb8bf.html\" target=\"_blank\">court denied Sen. Russell Pearce&#8217;s request<\/a> to testify as a third party in the case.\u00a0 Pearce insisted that as author of the bill he had a unique perspective, one different than the State of Arizona.\u00a0 The court agreed that Pearce could file an amicus brief, and it would also be possible for Arizona to call him as a witness, which they haven&#8217;t chosen to do.\u00a0 No one in Justice or on the court is trying to keep him quiet.<\/p>\n<p>In the video, Kelly asks, &#8220;Why are we looking to Bolivia for its opinion on on the constitutionality of an Arizona state law?&#8221;\u00a0 That would be a valid question if it were remotely true.\u00a0 First, &#8220;we&#8221; aren&#8217;t looking at all.\u00a0 Mexico and 10 other countries petitioned the court to be heard.\u00a0 No one at Justice went looking for their help.\u00a0 Second, the brief does not even attempt to address the constitutionality of the law.\u00a0 The brief only discusses the potential impact on foreign relations if the law is not overturned.<\/p>\n<p>Crowley states later that the Justice department is weighing in on the side of foreign governments.\u00a0 Unfortunately, that&#8217;s exactly backwards.\u00a0 Foreign governments are weighing in on the side of the federal government.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, in one of the most blatantly inflammatory moments on the video, Crowley says of the Justice Department, &#8220;They are waging  war against the American people. They are waging war against one of our  50 states.&#8221;\u00a0 When did filing suit and allowing a case to work its way through the courts become war?\u00a0 Obama didn&#8217;t send troops into Arizona to enact marshal law and prevent SB-1070 from being enacted.\u00a0 He followed the legal process, and all indications are that things are progressing apace.\u00a0 Our courts may be hell, but war?<\/p>\n<p>The real story is that there is no story here.\u00a0 This is a procedural non-event.\u00a0 Yet it has been blown into a firestorm resulting in cries of treason and demanding impeachment.\u00a0 The villagers are gathering with pitchforks and torches in hand.\u00a0 Crowds riled by deliberate misinformation and unwarranted accusations intended to get an emotional response.<\/p>\n<p>It&#8217;s worth noting that it&#8217;s illegal to walk into a crowded theater and yell, &#8220;FIRE!&#8221;\u00a0 The right to free speech only extends to the  point that it doesn\u2019t endanger someone else.\u00a0 Increasingly, sources like Fox News that should be reasonably assumed to be credible   are saying or repeating things that are utter fabrications.\u00a0 Those statements are inciting civil unrest.\u00a0 Sooner or later someone is going to get hurt, and when that happens, those who screamed &#8220;fire&#8221; should be held accountable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Megyn Kelly and Monica Crowley of Fox News rip into the Obama administration over ten Latin American countries being allowed<\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\"><a href=\"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/2010\/10\/fox-fuels-fire-in-arizona-immigration-action.html\" title=\"Read Fox fuels fire in Arizona immigration action\">Read more &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2628","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2628","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2628"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2628\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2630,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2628\/revisions\/2630"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2628"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2628"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timscogitorium.com\/tinblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2628"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}