The response to the original post -
Regarding your comments on the House Appropriations Committee agenda, nobody is being sued and most of SB1070 has been upheld. Factually, you are 0 for 2.
State Rep. John Kavanagh (Approps Chair)
The line relating to the SB1070 lawsuit that I used in the post -
- Appropriations, Wednesday 2 p.m., HHR1. One item on the agenda: HB2366, appropriating funds for nativist legislators and former legislators who have been sued over their involvement in the infamous (and mostly overturned by court decisions) SB1070.
Well, both Rep. Kavanagh and I were in error here.
From KGUN9, written by Ina Ronquillo -
Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature want taxpayers to pay for a legal fight against subpoenas seeking emails from nearly two dozen current and former lawmakers in a case stemming from a challenge to Arizona's anti-immigration law, SB1070.
That lawsuit, by the ACLU, doesn't actually name the current and former legislators.
Instead, their records are being subpoenaed as part of the lawsuit over a law that they were heavily involved in enacting.
My phrasing was unclear at best, and plainly incorrect at worst, and will be updated. I apologize for any misconceptions caused by my poor choice of words.
However, there was nothing unclear about Kavanagh's statement in his comment - "...nobody is being sued..."
There is also nothing correct about it.
As for the other part, about me stating that SB1070 has been "mostly overturned" and Kavanagh stating that "most of SB1070 has been upheld".
The US Supreme Court has struck down three significant provisions of the law while upholding a fourth major one.
We can quibble about the meaning of "most" in this context, so while I won't call out Kavanagh on this part of his statement, I'm still going to stand by the original text of mine.
Now, I'm not one given to quoting the Bible, but there is one passage that fits perfectly here.
From Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version) -
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
2 comments:
While you may have made an honest mis-step in reporting that information, Kavanagh out and out lies to get his agenda through.
He is one of the most damaging and hypocritical legislators we have.
Thank you for not letting him bully you!
My statement that nobody was being sued was in response to your self-admitted incorrect statement concerning “legislators and former legislators who have been sued.” I do not believe that it is fair to say that my statement that nobody was being sued is wrong. The issue is whether or not legislators are being sued and they are not. You admit that no legislators are named in the suit. If that is true, then how can my statement be incorrect?
Regarding your statement, “As for the other part, about me stating that SB1070 has been ‘mostly overturned’ and Kavanagh stating that ‘most of SB1070 has been upheld.’ The US Supreme Court has struck down three significant provisions of the law while upholding a fourth major one,” that is misleading. Not all of the decisions regarding SB1070 were decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.
SB1070 was an omnibus bill, meaning it had many provisions. In fact it had twelve distinct provisions, not counting the intent clause, which was also upheld but was not really enforceable law. Of the twelve provisions, seven were upheld at different court levels.
The seven upheld provisions were the ban on sanctuary city policies, the police mandate to inquire into immigration status when suspicion arises, the mandate for police to notify ICE immediately when an illegal immigrant is convicted of a crime, the authorization to transport illegal immigrants, the ban on localities restricting the flow of immigration status information related to benefits eligibility, etc., the right of citizens to sue police agencies that do not enforce immigration law with court costs to the winner, and the right to stop with reasonable suspicion vehicles believed to be used in smuggling.
Three sections were permanently enjoined and, thus, ruled illegal. They were the ban on illegal aliens applying for work or working in Arizona, the arrest without a warrant part when the person is believed to have committed a removable offense and not completing or carrying an alien registration document.
Two sections are preliminarily enjoined and are being adjudicated. They are the day laborer street pick-up part and the transporting an illegal alien in furtherance of illegal presence part.
Therefore, of the ten adjudicated provisions, seven were upheld and three were ruled illegal. Therefore my statement, “most of SB1070 has been upheld" is true and even if the remaining three parts are ruled illegal, my statement will still be true.
State Rep. John Kavanagh
Post a Comment