In the court case "Win" Column, there is this promising article from the Washington Post, "Judge Questions Justice Department's Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law." According to the article, this does not bode well for the DOJ's argument.
My favorite part of the article:
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.''
The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law's most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.
Holy moley, huh? I bet THAT was some fun to watch.
This case is still being considered, and no telling what the final outcome will be, but the attitude exhibited by Judge Noonan was certainly entertaining.
In the court case "Lose" category was this decision, "Don't Ask Don't Tell Is Back On, Indefinitely: Initial Reactions"
In the "I Told You So" category in terms of DADT, Harry Reid has already come out after the election with this claim, "Reid: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal Depends On GOP Cooperation." Have I not been saying this all along, that this was the Democrats' strategy? They knew they were going to lose their Super-majority in the recent election, and despite every opportunity to repeal DADT, Obama and the Democrats pushed it off. Check that - Obama did everything in his power to KEEP "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in place, as the recent appeal highlights. Unbelievable. Not unexpected, just unbelievable that they are starting the blame game the DAY after the election. Spare me.
And in the case of the recent election, the "I Won, But I'm Going To Act Like I Lost" category is Rep. Barney, Frank of MA, he of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac infamy (he claimed they were not in crisis -uh, riiigghhhttt...). As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air highlights, you would never know Barney Frank actually WON his seat against a late challenger(sigh) by the way he acted in his "acceptance" speech. Yes, it is over ten minutes long, but as Mr. Morrissey said:
[snip] Heck, when this got sent to me, I didn’t expect me to sit through it all, either. Once it gets started, it has a certain train-wreck quality to it that kept me hanging on until it finished. It’s a bit like watching Battlefield Earth all the way through to see if it actually gets worse, and in both cases, yes it does. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)
See for yourself below:
Yikes. And he's the WINNER?? Wow. I am a bit embarrassed that I actually voted for this guy. In my defense, then, he was not so much of a political hack (no, really, he wasn't!! Sheesh. I might add, I can't believe Deval Patrick won again, too. Holy moley.). Oh, and about Frank's partner, Jim Ready, having to take it on the chin. Frank seems to forget that there is VIDEO available of his partner heckling Frank's opponent, Sean Bielat, not the other way around. Wow, talk about revisionist history...
The past two years, along with the recent election, are lessons in winning some, and losing some, I guess. There were a couple of cases in which I wish we had won more, like on DADT and DOMA, but I never expected Obama to live up to his word on that, so I am not surprised. Just more anger at the DNC for shoving this man down our throats against the will of the majority. Hillary would have kept her promise to abolish DADT, not appealed a decision to stay it. Of that I am sure.
And we are still stuck with Harry Reid. Not that I thought Sharron Angle was a great alternative, I just cannot stand Harry Reid. I never did think he was a good choice for Senate Majority leader, and that opinion has only been strengthened in the time he has held that position. His quick blame of the GOP for an utter failure of Obama and the DNC is just another reason.
On the plus side, Nancy Pelosi will have to give up her gavel. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person. I guess I should not be surprised that Pelosi continues to be in unbelievable denial about her tenure, saying she "has no regrets" (h/t to my aunt). Well, many of the REST of us sure have regrets about how she operated since we'll be paying for it for years to come (unless Obamacare, the law that no one read, is repealed). That she cannot see her own myopia is no big surprise though, is it? Yeah, no.
So yes, you win some, you lose some. "Cest la vie." Ain't that the truth...