Arizona candidate says English challenge an abuse of power

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you say that the obvious can't be done? What we have is a judge trying to kill the political career of a potential ideological opponent. The Constitutional bar for high office is natural citizenship and age. There is no official American language in the US Constitution and the only people she needs to satisfy are her constituents, not a bunch of racists and xenophobes.

The Constitutional bar matters not in state elections for state officials. The states have every right to determine their own requirements.

Not having an official language of the country does not mean we don't have a "common" language of the country. We do. That language is English. The majority of the individual states have English as the official language on their books. Of the states that have not done so yet, the majority of them are in the process of doing so. Too bad for you.

Arizona has English as the official language on their books. Arizona also has requirements for holding public office. This woman does not meet said requirements, as per a language expert. The Judge hired a language expert so his ruling would be fair. Too bad if you don't like it. When a state has English as the official language and a requirement to be proficient in English to hold office, then so be it.

Spanish speakers are not special. Allowing someone to run for office who is not proficient in English sets a precedent. It would allow ANYONE not proficient in English (not just Spanish speakers) to run for said office.

You are a bigot. You only care about Spanish speakers and providing them with "special" things above others.

Cricket 23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is she racist and xenophobe if she can only communicate (satisfy) her Spanish speaking constituents and to hell with the ones that can only speak English?
You think?

My feelings exactly....Im sick and fkn tired of everyone tolerating hispanic racism..
.
Im also sick and damn tired of, everytime racism is metioned its expected to be whites being the racist.
.
ITS WAY PAST TIME TO START CALLLING BLACKS AND HISPANICS OUT ON THE CARPET CONCERNING THEIR RACISM. Hispanics are by FAR the biggest racist and its time to start dealing with it in my opinion.

And continueing the above...its time we DEMAND that politicians start addressing the FACT that racism goes both ways.

Genie Janie wrote:

<quoted text>
You should watch your mouth.

All he need iz mirror when he down by Obama's butt

Cricket 23 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is she racist and xenophobe if she can only communicate (satisfy) her Spanish speaking constituents and to hell with the ones that can only speak English?
You think?

We illegalz try that, but it makes our buttock itch

Its So Thick wrote:

Most white people in Congress [especially Republicans] can't read the bills they sign.
We need to get rid of them also on the grounds of not being fluent in English.

I think you mean like the democrats that blindly pushed though obamacare.

b4its2late wrote:

And continueing the above...its time we DEMAND that politicians start addressing the FACT that racism goes both ways.

That no true! We know all whites are rich peoples who only exsistant iz to hunt and torture everyone elze! Next you be saying all policemen and borderpatrol not white!
Fresh towel?

Not So Fast wrote:

Since she can't read English, perhaps her attorney should translate the Arizona Enabling Act to her. She's clearly not qualified to hold a govt position!

..hey...yes....eh...(+)

Paddy Cake Sux wrote:

<quoted text>I think you mean like the democrats that blindly pushed though obamacare.

Geez, they had to pass it so they read it to find out what was in it.

positronium wrote:

<quoted text>Agree

However, here we have not a naturalized citizen but an American born in this country. This Citizen wishes to stand for office in her community. Through Social Engineering, the judge is stripping her constituents of the right to decide if this Citizen - not an immigrant, not an alien - has the qualities they wish for in their representative. Are you truly do naive that you cannot understand that the judge would never block her if he thought she would vote as he desires? Language proficiency is just the excuse this activist judge is using.

Paddy Cake Sux wrote:

<quoted text>I think you mean like the democrats that blindly pushed though obamacare.

More like those who opposed it not knowing that it's cheaper than paying current emergency room write-offs.

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
However, here we have not a naturalized citizen but an American born in this country. This Citizen wishes to stand for office in her community. Through Social Engineering, the judge is stripping her constituents of the right to decide if this Citizen - not an immigrant, not an alien - has the qualities they wish for in their representative. Are you truly do naive that you cannot understand that the judge would never block her if he thought she would vote as he desires? Language proficiency is just the excuse this activist judge is using.

Your opinion and not mine.

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
However, here we have not a naturalized citizen but an American born in this country. This Citizen wishes to stand for office in her community. Through Social Engineering, the judge is stripping her constituents of the right to decide if this Citizen - not an immigrant, not an alien - has the qualities they wish for in their representative. Are you truly do naive that you cannot understand that the judge would never block her if he thought she would vote as he desires? Language proficiency is just the excuse this activist judge is using.

Do you not understand that an independent EXPERT witness testified that this woman is NOT proficient in English? Did you also not read where this woman ADMITTED she is not proficient in English and thinks it should not matter because so many of the people in her area speak Spanish?

The requirements for this position require English proficiency. To allow her to run, against the requirements, sets a precedent for others who are not English proficient to run.

She had every opportunity to provide her own EXPERT to say she *is* English proficient. She couldn't do that, because she isn't, and she admits she isn't. She plain just does not meet the requirements to hold this position.

Rules are rules. Laws are laws. We do not break them or ignore them just because the person speaks Spanish and bigots like you think Spanish speakers are somehow more important than everyone else.

Rebel wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you not understand that an independent EXPERT witness testified that this woman is NOT proficient in English? Did you also not read where this woman ADMITTED she is not proficient in English and thinks it should not matter because so many of the people in her area speak Spanish?
The requirements for this position require English proficiency. To allow her to run, against the requirem. ents, sets a precedent for others who are not English proficient to run.
She had every opportunity to provide her own EXPERT to say she *is* English proficient. She couldn't do that, because she isn't, and she admits she isn't. She plain just does not meet the requirements to hold this position.
Rules are rules. Laws are laws. We do not break them or ignore them just because the person speaks Spanish and bigots like you think Spanish speakers are somehow more important than everyone else.

I understand when carbon companies hire psuedo- scientists to "debunk" human involvement in climate change, too. Just another bunch of liars obfuscating for personal gain. Just as this activist judge is "taking out" an ideological opponent rather than letting the voters make the determination. She meets all the qualifications for office innumerated in the United States Constitution. Arizona laws differ? News to you and Rick Perry: the results of the slaveholders' rebellion in the mid-19th century pretty well trumpted the 10 th amendment.

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand when carbon companies hire psuedo- scientists to "debunk" human involvement in climate change, too. Just another bunch of liars obfuscating for personal gain. Just as this activist judge is "taking out" an ideological opponent rather than letting the voters make the determination. She meets all the qualifications for office innumerated in the United States Constitution. Arizona laws differ? News to you and Rick Perry: the results of the slaveholders' rebellion in the mid-19th century pretty well trumpted the 10 th amendment.

You are beyond ridiculous. Expert witnesses must have credentials, and those credentials are checked by opposing counsel. No opposing counsel would allow a "pseduo" anything to testify. They would file a motion to prohibit it.

The only thing the Constitution can decide about running for office would be FEDERAL elections. The states have every right to make their own rules about who can run for local elections. Arizona has English as the official language on their books (as do most states) and one of their requirements for public office is English proficiency. The judge did nothing wrong. A language expert *and* the woman herself has said she's not English proficient. Considering that's a requirement, she doesn't qualify.

It's not up to the voters to determine who *should* run for local office. It's up to them to elect someone who meets the required criteria.

You apparently are mentally challenged when it comes to comprehending rules and laws.

Rebel wrote:

<quoted text>
You are beyond ridiculous. Expert witnesses must have credentials, and those credentials are checked by opposing counsel. No opposing counsel would allow a "pseduo" anything to testify. They would file a motion to prohibit it.
The only thing the Constitution can decide about running for office would be FEDERAL elections. The states have every right to make their own rules about who can run for local elections. Arizona has English as the official language on their books (as do most states) and one of their requirements for public office is English proficiency. The judge did nothing wrong. A language expert *and* the woman herself has said she's not English proficient. Considering that's a requirement, she doesn't qualify.
It's not up to the voters to determine who *should* run for local office. It's up to them to elect someone who meets the required criteria.
You apparently are mentally challenged when it comes to comprehending rules and laws.

You do know that this is still under litigation, right? Meaning that the opinions of the supposed "experts" are still prone to challenge? That "proficiency" is as nebulous a concept as is "sanity"? When rules and laws conflict, there is a hierarchy, with Federal at the top. But any law limiting freedoms is just plain wrong, unless the exercise of such freedom causes unacceptable harm to someone else.

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know that this is still under litigation, right? Meaning that the opinions of the supposed "experts" are still prone to challenge? That "proficiency" is as nebulous a concept as is "sanity"? When rules and laws conflict, there is a hierarchy, with Federal at the top. But any law limiting freedoms is just plain wrong, unless the exercise of such freedom causes unacceptable harm to someone else.

No, actually it's not. Arizona's Supreme Court is as high as this woman can go for this situation. Someone *could* go to the Supreme Court of the U.S. to suggest that a state having English proficiency as a requirement is a problem, but they won't get anywhere, as states are sovereign and can impose their on requirements.

Please post a link showing this is still being appealed. You won't be able to, because it's not. It was heard in a lower court, appealed to Arizona Supreme Court and both courts found the same -- she doesn't qualify. Done deal.

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know that this is still under litigation, right? Meaning that the opinions of the supposed "experts" are still prone to challenge? That "proficiency" is as nebulous a concept as is "sanity"? When rules and laws conflict, there is a hierarchy, with Federal at the top. But any law limiting freedoms is just plain wrong, unless the exercise of such freedom causes unacceptable harm to someone else.

Tell me, how do you live with such a learning disability?

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>

More like those who opposed it not knowing that it's cheaper than paying current emergency room write-offs.

Source??

pinchejuan wrote:

<quoted text>

However, here we have not a naturalized citizen but an American born in this country.

This Citizen wishes to stand for office in her community.

Through Social Engineering, the judge is stripping her constituents of the right to decide if this Citizen - not an immigrant, not an alien - has the qualities they wish for in their representative.

Are you truly do naive that you cannot understand that the judge would never block her if he thought she would vote as he desires?

Language proficiency is just the excuse this activist judge is using.

Would the Judge be stripping her ENGLISH speaking constituents of the right to decide if this Citizen not an immigrant, not an alien - has the qualities they wish for in their representative?

You think?