Other Agents Reportedly ‘Furious’ over Secret Service Sex Scandal

Writer Jeffrey Robinson says agents he's spoken to are infuriated at the "schmucks" behind the prostitution scandal

By Tim Newcomb | @tdnewcomb | April 18, 2012 |

inShare4

Jonathan Ernst / Reuters

A Secret Service agent stands guard as President Obama departs from the White House on April 13, 2012, aboard the helicopter Marine One for travel to Colombia for the Summit of Americas

Think of the Secret Service as akin to the Marines, at least in terms of pride. So when 11 agents soiled the service’s reputation by allegedly partying with prostitutes and bringing them back to secure hotel rooms ahead of a presidential trip to Colombia, it’s understandable that the rest of the 6,500-member organization might be outraged — even if current Secret Service agents aren’t publicly commenting on the incident.
But as one author close to the organization says, other agents are “furious” about the events that took place in Cartagena. Jeffrey Robinson, who co-wrote the book Standing Next to History: An Agent’s Life Inside the Secret Service with Joseph Petro, a former assistant special agent in charge of the service’s Presidential Protection Division, has extensive ties to the agency and keeps in touch with current and former agents. “What these guys did was tarnish that polish of the Secret Service, and that offends these guys with the pride,” he says. “The agents I know are furious. It is a huge embarrassment. They are upset with the 11 guys for being schmucks.”
Still, it’s worth keeping events in perspective: calling this the worst scandal in Secret Service history is just playing politics, Robinson says. The service’s blackest moment will always be Nov. 22, 1963, when it failed to prevent the assassination of President Kennedy. It remains unknown whether the agents in Colombia knew enough about Obama’s itinerary to put him in jeopardy, although reports have surfaced indicating that the President’s schedule was in at least one of the hotel rooms on that night.
(MORE: The Assassination Attempts Against George W. Bush and Bill Clinton)
If the agents were merely members of a support team rather than the official advance group, Robinson says, that could limit the threat somewhat. Like many organizations, there’s a class system at work within the Secret Service. The best of the best work in the Presidential Protection Division, with the Vice President’s minders close behind. Then you have the advance team and field agents working posts and perimeters. At lower levels of seniority come the uniformed agents, those who work the metal detectors at events — the same division that allowed an infamous pair of aspiring reality-show party crashers into the White House during a state dinner in 2009.
When the President travels, security needs grow exponentially, and agents from all over the country and from every division are added to the mix. “They have a huge support staff and are there for however long they are needed,” Robinson says. “It is a huge circus when the President travels.” Some agents end up in charge of fairly minor operations — arranging mechanics for cars, standing at a post some distance from the President or even just arranging who will stay in which hotel room (as Robinson notes, they didn’t do too well at that).
It’s not as if the agents’ actions were harmless, however. They endangered themselves, leaving their IDs, badges and guns open to theft or potentially harmful situations, even in the mildest of security breaches. They also opened the door to possible blackmail, though Robinson believes that with the level of information they likely had, the extortion wouldn’t have extended much further than threatening to send compromising pictures to the agents’ spouses.
(MORE: A Brief History of the Secret Service)
And while letting off steam isn’t unknown in the service — witness the traditional  “wheels up” parties after an event is completed — this incident will likely be the last, at least for a while. “The Secret Service will learn from their mistakes, and whether this happens again, it is not going to happen soon,” Robinson says.
He cites past issues as evidence: since the Kennedy assassination, no President has ridden in an open-top car, and parade routes are no longer made public. After Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981, the Secret Service developed protocols for medical emergencies requiring hospitalization and have an agent assigned specifically to that task.
These days, the Secret Service can control not just those who have access to the President but also entire sections of buildings or cities. With agents assigned to sweep for surveillance, cordon off hotels, carry petty cash, man posts on roofs and run the ever increasing layers of security, there isn’t a single person within view of the President who hasn’t gone through at least one screening (another lesson learned from the Reagan assassination attempt).
“They aren’t surrounding the President. They are guarding an area,” Robinson says. “Nothing happens without the Secret Service first having done it.”

PHOTOS: JFK: TIME’s Best Cover Stories

Is the Mexican Immigration Boom Over?

A new study by the Pew Hispanic Center shows the flood of Mexican immigrants into the U.S. has not only slowed, but apparently reversed.

By Katherine Cooney | @kccooney | April 24, 2012 | 

inShare4

JOHN MOORE/Getty Images

NOGALES, AZ - A U.S. Army National Guardsman overwatches the U.S.-Mexico border on 

June 22, 2011 in Nogales, Arizona.

The largest immigration boom from a single country to the United States is over, according to a recent report from the Pew Hispanic Center.  For the first time since the Great Depression, more Mexicans are leaving the United States than arriving, ending a decades-long wave that brought 12 million Mexican immigrants into the U.S. — more than half of whom entered illegally.

Immigration is a major political issue, especially in a campaign where both parties are vying for the Latino vote, which as TIME predicted could determine the outcome of the 2012 election.
(PHOTOS: Faces of the Latino Vote)
According to the report, the standstill in immigrants coming to the U.S. can be attributed to:

• Weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets.
• Heightened border enforcement.
• A rise in deportations.
• The growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings.
• The long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rate.
• Changing economic conditions in Mexico.

As Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at Pew and co-author of the report, told the Washington Post, “The diminished flow appears largely to be a drop in unauthorized immigrants.” The decrease could be attributed to fears of border control and deportation, two areas of immigration control that have significantly intensified efforts to keep unauthorized immigrants out of the country.
And the efforts have had results. In 2005, according to the report, more than 1 million immigrations tried to cross the border illegally. By 2011, that number dropped to 286,000.
(MORE: Obama, Now the Warrior, Wants to Revive immigration Reform)
Deportations have similarly reached record numbers, with roughly 400,000 illegal immigrants being deported in 2010, 73 percent of them Mexicans.
For years, many immigrants accepted hostility from native-born Americans as a condition of access to the opportunities available in the United States. However, the loss of working-class jobs, particularly in construction, has led more and more to reconsider the tradeoffs. Now, just as many Mexican immigrants are returning to Mexico from the U.S. as are arriving in the states — if not more.
Whether the Pew report will have implications on immigration policy remains to be seen, especially given how both countries’ precarious economic health could greatly affect the flow of immigrants. “It gives us the space to figure out how do we fix the legal immigration system so when the economy bounces back, how do we respond?,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and civic engagement at the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy group, to the Washington Post. Meanwhile, the next immigration battle is shaping up fast: on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments concerning a controversial Arizona law that allows local and state police to stop and check people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.
MORE: How the 2012 Republicans are Fairing with Latino Voters

Read other related stories about this:

• For first time since Depression, more Mexicans leave U.S. than enter Washington Post
• Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less Pew Hispanic Center

Argument recap: A choice between radical and reasonable?

Lyle Denniston Reporter

Posted Wed, April 25th, 2012 4:30 pm

Email Lyle

Analysis
With Justice Antonin Scalia pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states clear authority to close their borders entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S., seven other Justices on Wednesday went looking for a more reasonable way to judge states’ power in the immigration field.  If the Court accepts the word of Arizona’s lawyer that the state is seeking only very limited authority, the state has a real chance to begin enforcing key parts of its controversial law — S.B. 1070 — at least until further legal tests unfold in lower courts.

In an oral argument that ran 20 minutes beyond the scheduled hour, the Justices focused tightly on the actual operation of the four specific provisions of the law at issue, and most of the Court seemed prepared to accept that Arizona police would act in measured ways as they arrest and detain individuals they think might be in the U.S. illegally.  And most of the Justices seemed somewhat skeptical that the federal government would have to change its own immigration priorities just because states were becoming more active.

At the end of the argument in Arizona v. United States (11-182), though, the question remained how a final opinion might be written to enlarge states’ power to deal with some 12 million foreign nationals without basing that authority upon the Scalia view that states have a free hand under the Constitution to craft their own immigration policies.   The other Justices who spoke up obviously did not want to turn states entirely loose in this field.  So perhaps not all of the four clauses would survive — especially vulnerable may be sections that created new state crimes as a way to enforce federal immigration restrictions.


If the Court is to permit Arizona to put into effect at least some of the challenged parts of S.B. 1070, there would have to be five votes to do so because only eight Justices are taking part (Justice Elena Kagan is out of the case), and a 4-4 split would mean that a lower court’s bar to enforcing those provisions would be upheld without a written opinion.   It did not take long for Justice Antonin Scalia to side with Arizona, and it was not much later that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., showed that he, too, was inclined that way.   Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing during the argument, is known to be totally opposed to the kind of technical legal challenge that the government has mounted against S.B. 1070.

That left Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as the ones that might be thought most likely to help make a majority for Arizona.  Their questioning, less pointed, made them somewhat less predictable.  However, they did show some sympathy for the notion that a border state like Arizona might have good reasons for trying to deal with what Kennedy called the “social and economic disruption” resulting from illegal immigration.

The Court’s three more liberal Justices — Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor — offered what appeared to be a less than enthusiastic support for the federal government’s challenge, although they definitely were troubled that S.B. 1070 might, in practice, lead to long detentions of immigrants.  They wanted assurances on the point, and they were offered some by Arizona’s lawyer, Washington attorney Paul D. Clement.

Clement’s entire strategy (aside from an emotional plea that Arizona had to bear the brunt of the wave of illegal and often dangerous immigrants) was to soften the seemingly harder edges of the 2010 state law that set off a wave of new state and local legislation to control the lives of foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S.   To each question Wednesday about how S.B. 1070 would work if put into effect, Clement pared down the likely impact and insisted that Arizona was only seeking to be a cooperative junior partner in enforcing federal laws and policies against undocumented immigrants.

But beneath the reassuring demeanor, Clement’s argument had a stubborn bottom line.   He was not willing to endorse suggestions that the Court write its opinion in a way that would put some fairly tight limits on how Arizona chose to enforce specific provisions of its law — especially, the detention power that the state wants to hand to police officers when they stop anyone they think may be in the state illegally.   He would, he said, embrace an opinion that said the Court would assume that Arizona police would not abuse the power they were given.

Assuming that the Court does allow most, if not all, of S.B. 1070′s four sections to go into effect, that still would not amount to final constitutional clearance for any of the sections.  The case reached the Justices in a preliminary state, and there will be ongoing challenges in lower courts when the case is returned to them.   Moreover, there are challenges to some of those provisions that the Court did not consider on Wednesday, because they are not part of the federal government’s legal assault on the Arizona statute.

The most important of those remaining challenges is the claim that at least two of the four sections give police authority to arrest and detain people just because they look like foreigners — in a phrase, “racial profiling.”  While some of the amici in this case did raise that in their briefs, the federal government has studiously avoided the claim.   And, the moment that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., took his place at the lectern to make the U.S. challenge, Chief Justice Roberts sought to make sure that he did not talk about “racial profiling.”

Roberts said: “Before you get into what the case is about, I’d like to clear up at the outset what it’s not about.  No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?  I saw none of that in your brief.”  Verrilli said that was correct.  But the Chief Justice wanted to be sure: “Okay.  So this is not a case about ethnic profiling.”  The Solicitor General answered: “We’re not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in this case.”

Although no observer could be sure what motivated Roberts to make that point, he was either trying to keep that question out of the case because it would remain an issue in lower courts, or else he was seeking to head off criticism that, if the Court did allow Arizona to enforce S.B. 1070, the Court was not endorsing racial or ethnic profiling.

Justice Scalia also seemed to want to leave that issue aside.  When, later in the argument, Verrilli began making a point about the Latino population that would be affected by the Arizona law, Scalia interrupted to say that that sounded like he was discussing racial profiling.  Verrilli did not pursue the point.

When the Solicitor General then launched his argument, it was Arizona’s motive that he attacked frontally: its aim, he said, was to adopt its own immigration controls with the aim of driving illegal immigrants out of the state.   The Constitution forbids that, he argued.   When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked him to reply to Justice Scalia’s earlier suggestion that Arizona could bar all illegal immigrants from the state, Verrilli again said the Constitution would forbid that.

But his national supremacy argument seemed regularly to falter, because the Justices as a group seemed much more interested in parsing just how the Arizona law would work in tandem with or, potentially, in conflict with federal policy.   Verrilli, in fact, never quite got his point across about federal supremacy, and that showed in an exchange between him and Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Sotomayor.

Alito said he could not understand why Verrilli seemed to be saying that Arizona could not instruct its own state employees on how they should enforce the state’s own law, but rather that they should only do what federal authorities wanted them to do even though they don’t work for the federal government.   The question seemed to indicate that Alito did not see that Verrilli was arguing that, since it was federal law that was at issue, federal priorities should govern.

Verrilli replied that, if a state wanted to cooperate in immigration enforcement, they needed only to bring to federal attention the fact that a given illegal immigrant was in the U.S.   But Kennedy shot back that Alito was only talking about whose law state employees should enforce as a state priority.  The Solicitor General then repeated the idea that the federal priorities should govern what state employees did, in the immigration context.

At that point, Justice Sotomayor said that the government argument left her “terribly confused.”  She said she could not understand what was wrong with a system in which, if federal officials are contacted about an arrested immigrant and said they did not want that person detained, that person would have to be released.   She was relying, of course, on attorney Clement’s assurance that that was what would happen if a federal official waved off the need for an immigrant to be detained further.

Chief Justice Roberts, though, went the furthest to try to discount Verrilli’s core argument about the disruption of federal immigration enforcement if Arizona were allowed to have its own style of enforcing immigration law.  All that Arizona’s law required, Roberts suggested, was that a state officer let the federal government know that there was an illegal immigrant in its midst, and that did not force the government to do anything; it could enforce its ban on such immigrants or not.  Somewhat sarcastically, the Chief commented: “If you don’t want to know who is in this country illegally, you don’t have to.”

Moreover, the Chief Justice said, an arrest of an immigrant by an Arizona police officer simply had nothing to do with immigration law.  It only becomes an issue of immigration law, Roberts said, when the state asks a federal official about the legal status of that arrested person.

It was not apparent that any of the Justices was inclined to come to Verrilli’s rescue.  Even Justice Sotomayor advised him, bluntly, that his main argument was”not sellling very well; why don’t you try to come up with something else?…What’s left of your argument?”

In fact, it appeared, overall, that the only way an observer could find that any part of the Arizona law was at risk was to read between the lines, relying upon some hints that maybe the state had gone too far by creating its own new brand of crime for someone who violated a federal immigration provision.   The separate crimes provisions of S.B. 1070, though, drew very little conversation.

Just Say No - Keystone XL Pipeline - Tar Sands

Published on Mar 28, 2012 by TyrannosaurusRocks1

Dr. Lester S. Carboni and Rick Majestic of Tyrannosaurus Rocks investigate one of the most dangerous substances on the market today, a dirty substance from Canada. Its defenders claim it isn't bad for you, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Photos from outside the Court today

Max Mallory Deputy Manager

Posted Wed, April 25th, 2012 9:50 am

Email Max

Amy Howe took this photo from the Court steps following oral argument.

Tom Goldstein took these photos outside of the Court this morning.

Court to consider Arizona immigration law: A preview in Plain English

Amy Howe Editor

Posted Wed, April 25th, 2012 9:12 am

Email Amy

This morning at ten o’clock the Court will hear the final oral argument scheduled for this Term.  Just as it did last month, the Court will be considering a highly divisive issue during the middle of the presidential campaign.  And the cast of characters will be much the same as well:  former Solicitor General Paul Clement will represent the state, while the current Solicitor General, Don Verrilli, will argue on behalf of the federal government.  But this time the issue is immigration, rather than health care, and the federal government is the challenger:  it will be asking the Court to uphold the lower courts’ rulings that several provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration law, cannot go into effect because they conflict with federal immigration laws.  The case, Arizona v. United States, is likely to cap off what will almost certainly be a historic Term at the Court; let’s take a closer look at it in Plain English.

As I explained when the Court agreed to take up the case back in December, the Arizona legislature passed S.B. 1070, the law at issue in the case, because it believes that the federal government has not done enough to combat illegal immigration.  The official goal of the law is “attrition by enforcement” – that is, putting strict controls on illegal immigrants in the hope that they will become fed up and return to their home countries.  Before the law went into effect in 2010, the federal government went to court to block the state from enforcing the law, arguing that federal immigration law trumped, or “preempted,” the state law.  The lower courts agreed with the federal government, and late last year the Supreme Court granted the state’s request for review.

Four different provisions of S.B. 1070 are currently before the Court.  One provision, Section 2(B), requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone whom they arrest; it also allows police to stop and arrest anyone whom they believe to be an illegal immigrant.  Section 3 makes it a crime for someone even to be in the state without valid immigration papers, while Section 5(C) makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without proper papers.  Finally, in Section 6, the law gives a police officer the power to arrest someone, without a warrant, if the officer believes that he has committed a crime that could cause him to be deported, no matter where the crime may have occurred.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, Arizona emphasizes two themes.  First, when the federal government has enforced its immigration laws at all, it has at best done so unevenly, resulting in a massive influx of illegal immigration.  Arizona has been especially hard hit by illegal immigration, which has sharply increased the state’s crime rate, required the state to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on social services for illegal immigrants, and reduced wages for the Arizona residents who are authorized to work in this country.

Because the federal government has failed to act to address this crisis, Arizona explained, it enacted S.B. 1070.  This goes to the state’s second theme:  its efforts to regulate illegal immigration within its borders do not conflict with federal law.  In fact, it’s just the opposite.

With Section 2(B) and Section 6, for example, which require police officers to verify the immigration status of arrestees and authorize warrantless arrests when police believe that someone has committed a crime that could get him deported, all that the state is trying to do is enforce existing federal laws, which federal immigration laws specifically authorize it to do.  Similarly, in Section 3, which makes it a crime to be in Arizona without valid immigration papers, the state is simply prohibiting something that federal law also forbids.  Finally, Section 5  – which makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job in the state without proper papers – is constitutional because federal laws only trump state laws that punish employers who hire illegal immigrants; those laws do not say anything about (much less prohibit states from) punishing the illegal immigrants themselves for seeking work.

Not surprisingly, the federal government paints a very different picture of the case.  What Arizona characterizes as “cooperation” is, in the government’s eyes, more like a serious thorn in its side as it attempts to balance a variety of concerns – such as foreign policy, national security, and individual freedoms.  For this reason, the government explains, Congress gave it sole authority over immigration.  With S.B. 1070, Arizona is basically trying to elbow its way in and require its officials to strictly enforce federal immigration laws, even if it upsets the balance that the government has tried to strike.

Each of the provisions of S.B. 1070 must, the government argues, give way to federal immigration laws.  For example, Congress has set up comprehensive schemes to govern when and where immigrants must register in this country (and, once registered, prove that they have done so); a similar system is in place to deal with which immigrants may work and to impose penalties on those who work without proper authorization.  Therefore, Arizona cannot enforce its own laws – Sections 3 and 5 – on these same questions.  And the two remaining provisions of S.B. 1070 must also fall, because they interfere with the discretion that the federal government has to decide whether an immigrant should be removed even if he can be.

Many people will be watching this case closely, not only for what it means for Arizona but also because the Court’s decision is likely to affect tough immigration laws passed in other states, including Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah, and Indiana.  Significantly, just last Term, in a case called Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the Court ruled on the constitutionality of another Arizona law that imposed harsh punishments on businesses in the state which employed illegal immigrants.  By a vote of five to three, the Court allowed the law to stand, over the objections of the federal government.

The Court’s newest Justice, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the Whiting case because she was involved in it while serving as the Solicitor General, and she will sit this one out for the same reason.  With Justice Kagan out, and because the federal government won this case in the lower court, the lower court’s decision would stand if the remaining eight Justices split evenly (although it would not carry any weight beyond this case).  But to do that, the government must convince at least one of the five Justices who voted to uphold the law in Whiting that S.B. 1070 is different.  We are likely to have a better sense of how likely the government is to succeed after the oral argument today; we will be back to report on it in Plain English.

Late Night with Jimmy Fallon: President Barack Obama

Part 1

Published on Apr 24, 2012 by latenight

Jimmy asks President Obama about living with three women in the White House.

Part 2

Published on Apr 24, 2012 by latenight

President Obama shares an embarrassing moment he had during an event with important guests present.

Supreme Court signals it's OK with parts of Arizona's immigration law

3

hours

ago

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Leonida Martinez, left, from Phoenix, Ariz., and others, take part in a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, as the court questions Arizona's "show me your papers" law.

By NBC News and msnbc.com staff

Updated 11:54 a.m. ET: The Supreme Court appears ready to uphold part of Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would allow some of the measures currently blocked by lower courts to be enforced.
Based on comments during Wednesday's oral arguments on the case, even some of the court's liberal justices seemed to find no strong objection to the most controversial part of the law, which requires local police to check on the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest.
The state appeared to have a tougher time defending two other provisions of the law that are now blocked: making it a state crime to have no federal immigration papers and making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to look for work. Neither is currently a federal crime.

---

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check part of SB 1070, the state law aimed at driving illegal immigrants out of Arizona. The Obama administration argues that immigration policy is rightfully set by the federal government, not states.
But Arizona says immigration is not exclusively a federal matter and the state has the right to act because federal authorities have not done their job.
Key parts of the law have been put on hold by lower courts pending action by the Supreme Court.
The legislation, which was signed into law by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, has inspired similar laws in other states.
Supreme Court to hear Arizona immigration case: Who wins, loses? 
As immigration case goes before high court, what it means for 2012

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Arizona's controversial immigration law heads to the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow. NBC's Pete Williams offers a preview. Tamar Jacoby, ImmigrationWorks USA, and Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General, weigh in.

The case has become 2012 campaign fodder for the Obama administration and Republicans.
But it is an issue that also has the potential to split the Republicans.
The most prominent Latino Republican, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio -- a potential running mate for Mitt Romney -- said last week that he did not "believe that laws like Arizona’s should be a model for the country,” although he added he understood why Arizona had passed the law.
But, crucially, he added, “I would much rather the federal government deal with the illegal immigration issue and modernize our legal immigration system ... .”
Those remarks put him at odds with Romney, who in February called the Arizona's immigration law “a model." Romney also has said he hoped the law “will be implemented with care and caution not to single out individuals based upon their ethnicity.”
NBC's Pete Williams contributed to this report.

Should states be able to enact their own immigration laws?

• Yes, the federal government is not doing enough.
• No, state-level immigration enforcement would sow chaos.

• Optional short answer(140 characters left)

  Make your case! Keep it short and classy. Other users may flag anything less.

  

  Lilabeth

Supreme Courrt vs Arizona Immigration Law

No. 11-182 Title: Arizona, et al., Petitioners v. United States Docketed: August 12, 2011 Linked with 10A1277 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit   Case Nos.: (10-16645)   Decision Date: April 11, 2011 Questions Presented   11-182 ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 641F.3d339 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-16645 Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070) to address the illegal immigration crisis in the State. The four provisions of S.B. 1070 enjoined by the courts below authorize and direct state law-enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and impose penalties under state law for non-compliance with federal immigration requirements. The question presented is whether the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt these four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face. ~~~~~Proceedings  and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   Merit Briefs Brief for Petitioner State of Arizona Brief for Respondent United States Reply Brief for Petitioner State of Arizona Amicus Briefs Brief for the American Civil Rights Union in Support of Petitioners Brief for the American Unity Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioners Brief for the Arizona Legislature in Support of Petitioners Brief for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Individual Rights Foundation, the Committee for Justice, Congressmen Ed Royce, Ted Poe, and Tom McClintock, and Indiana Senator Mike Delph in Support of Petitioner  Brief for Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever in Support of Petitioners Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund in Support of Petitioners Brief for Freedom Watch in Support of Petitioner Brief for Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff in Support of Petitioner Brief for Landmark Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners Brief for Lawrence J. Joyce in Support of Petitioners Brief for the Liberty Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner Brief for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a Project of Declaration Alliance, and Lori Klein, Arizona State Senator in Support of Petitioners Brief for Members of Congress and the Committee to Protect America’s Border in Support of Petitioners Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner Brief for Secure States Initiative in Support of Petitioner Brief for State Senator Russell Pearce in Support of Petitioners Brief for State Legislators for Legal Immigration and Individual State Legislators in Support of Petitioners Brief for State of Michigan and Fifteen Other States in Support of the Petitioners Brief for Thomas More Law Center and Center for Security Policy in Support of the Petitioners Brief for U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, the Institute on the Constitution, the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Representative Charles Key, and Wyoming Senator Kit Jennings in Support of Petitioners Brief for U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith, Brian Bilbray, Dan Burton, Trent Franks, Wally Herger, Duncan Hunter, Steve King, Tom Mcclintock, Ted Poe, Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce, and David Schweikert, Washington Legal Foundation, and Allied Educational Foundation in Support Of Petitioners Brief for the American Bar Association in Support of Respondent Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Immigration Law Center, ACLU of Arizona, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, National Day Labor Organizing Network, and Friendly House V. Whiting Plaintiffs in Support of Respondent Brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Respondent Brief for the Anti-Defamation League in Support of Respondent Brief for Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, the Arizpna Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the American Subcontractors Association of Arizona, and Hill & Usher, L.L.C., in Support of Respondent Brief for the Association of the Bar of New York City in Support of Respondent and Affirmance Brief for County of Santa Clara, California; the City of Austin, Texas; the City of Baltimore, Maryland; the City of Beaverton, Oregon; the City of Berkeley, California; the City of Boston, Massachusetts; the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut; the Town of Carrboro, North Carolina; the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina; the City of Charleston, South Carolina; the City of Cincinnati, Ohio; the City of Columbia, South Carolina; The County of Dallas, Texas; The District of Columbia; the City of Durham, North Carolina; the City of Flagstaff, Arizona; the City of Gainesville, Florida; the City of Hallandale Beach, Florida; The City of Laredo, Texas; The City of Los Angeles, California; the City of Madison, Wisconsin; the City of Miami Beach, Florida; the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; the County of Monterey, California; The County of Multnomah, Oregon; The National League of Cities; the City of New Haven, Connecticut; the City of New York, New York; the City of Oakland, California; the City of Omaha, Nebraska; the City of Palo Alto, California; the Mayor of the City of Phoenix, Arizona; the City of Portland, Oregon; the City of Providence, Rhode Island; the City of Saint Paul, Minnesota; Salt Lake City, Utah; the City and County of San Francisco, California; the City of San Jose, California; the City of San Leandro, California; the City of San Luis, Arizona; the County of San Mateo, California; the City of Seattle, Washington; the City of Tualatin, Oregon; the City of Tucson, Arizona; the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Legaue of Cities in Support of Respondent Brief for the Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Respondent Brief for Former Arizona Attorneys General Terry Goddard and Grand Woods, and Forty-Two Other Former Attorneys General in Support of Respondent Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in Support of Respondent Brief for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Poverty Law Center, League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Congress of American Indians, Legal Momentum, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, African American Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, and Other Civil Rights, Faith, and Community Organizations in Support of Respondent Brief for the Greater Houston Partnership in Support of Respondent Brief for Madeleine K. Albright, William S. Cohen, Rudolph F. Deleon, Conrad K. Harper, Donald L. Kerrick, Lawrence J. Korb, John D. Negroponte, Davis R. Robinson, and William H. Taft IV in Support of Respondent Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Respondent Brief for the National Council of La Raza, United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic National Bar Association, Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association, and National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Support of Respondent Brief for the National Immigrant Justice Center and the American Immigration Lawyers Association in Support of Respondent Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent Brief for Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, United Farm Workers of America, and Change to Win in Support of Respondents Brief for the States of New York, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont in Support of Respondent Brief for State and Local Law Enforcement Officials in Support of Respondent Brief for the United Mexican States in Support of Respondent Brief for the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, and Rev. Gradye Parsons as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in Support of Respondent Brief for Earthrights International in Support of Neither Party ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~    ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioners: Paul D. Clement Bancroft PLLC (202) 234-0090     Counsel of Record 1919 M Street, N.W., Suite 470 Washington, DC  20036 pclement@bancroftpllc.com Party name: Arizona, et al. Attorneys for Respondent: Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General (202) 514-2217     Counsel of Record United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC  20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov Party name: United States Other: Brian Mccormack Bergin 6613 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 200 (480) 505-3936 Scottsdale, AZ  85250 bbergin@roselawgroup.com Party name: Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr. Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton (212) 225-2000 One Liberty Plaza New York, NY  10006 cboccuzzi@cgsh.com Party name: Former Arizona Attorneys General Terry Goddard and Grant Woods, et al. David J. Bodney Steptoe & Johnson (602) 257-5212 201 East Washington Street Suite 1600 Phoenix, AZ  85004 dbodney@steptoe.com Party name: Anti-Defamation League John J. Bursch Michigan Solicitor General (517) 373-1124 P.O. Box 30212 Lansing, MI  48909 BurschJ@michigan.gov Party name: Michigan and Ten Other States Michigan and Fifteen Other States Anthony T. Caso Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (714) 628-2530 c/o Chapman University School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA  92886 caso@chapman.edu Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. James B. Coppess American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (202) 637-5337 815 Sixteenth Street, NW Washington, DC  20006 Party name: American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Michael B. de Leeuw Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (212) 859-8000 One New York Plaza New York, NY  10004 Michael.deLeeuw@friedfrank.com Party name: Members of Congress James Scott Detamore Mountain States Legal Foundation (303) 292-1980 2596 South Lewis Way Lakewood, CO  80227 detamore@mountainstateslegal.com Party name: Mountain States Foundation John C. Eastman Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (714) 628-2587 c/o Chapman University School of Law One University Drive Orange, CA  92886 jeastman@chapman.edu Party name: Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. John P. Elwood Vinson & Elkins LLP (202) 639-6518 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC  20004 jelwood@velaw.com Party name: Greater Houston Partnership David J. Euchner Assistant Public Defender (520) 243-6800 33 N. Stone, 21st Floor Tucson, AZ  85701 david.euchner@pima.gov Party name: Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, et al. Peter J. Ferrara 814 Rue Rochelle (703) 582-8466 Slidell, LA  18042 peterferrara@msn.com Party name: American Civil Rights Union Peter A. Gentala 1700 West Washington St., Suite H (602)-926-5544 Phoenix, AZ  85007-2844 pgentala@azleg.gov Party name: the Arizona Legislature Greta Suzanne Hansen Lead Deputy County Counsel (408) 299-5902 Office of the County Counsel County of Santa Clara, California 70 W. Hedding Street , 9th Floor East Wing San Jose, CA  95110 greta.hansen@cco.sccgov.org Party name: Cities, Counties, et al. Lindsay C. Harrison Jenner & Block LLP (202) 639-6000 1099 New York Avenue, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC  20001 lharrison@jenner.com Party name: National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. Richard L. Herz EarthRights International (202) 466-5188 1612 K Street N.W., Suite 401 Washington, DC  20006 rick@earthrights.org Party name: EarthRights International in support of neither party James L. Hirsen 505 S. Villa Real Drive (714) 283-8880 Suite 208 Anaheim Hills, CA  92807 hirsen@earthlink.net Party name: Justice and Freedom Fund Richard P. Hutchison Landmark Legal Foundation (816) 931-1175 3100 Broadway Suite 1210 Kansas City, MO  64111 hutchison@landmarklegal.org Party name: Landmark Legal Foundation Van R. Irion Liberty Legal Foundation (865) 809-1505 9040 Executive Park Drive Suite 200 Knoxville, TN  37923 irionlaw@earthlink.net Party name: Liberty Legal Foundationa Lawrence J. Joseph 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW (202) 669-5135 Suite 200 Washington, DC  20036 lj@larryjoseph.com Party name: Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund Lawrence J. Joyce Lawrence J. Joyce LLC (520) 584-0236 1517 N. Wilmot Rd., #215 Tucson, AZ  85712 lawyerlj@aol.com Party name: Lawrence J. Joyce Larry Klayman Freedom Watch (310) 595-0800 2020 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 345 Washington, DC  20006 Party name: Freedom Watch Kris W. Kobach Secure States Initiative (913) 638-5567 4701 N. 130th St. Kansas City, KS  66109 kkobach@gmail.com Party name: Secure States Initiative Gary G. Kreep United States Justice Foundation (760) 788-6624 932 D Street, Suite 3 Ramona, CA  92065 usjf@usijf.net Party name: Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, et al. Thomas Purcell Liddy Maricopa County Attorney's Office (602) 372-2098 222 North Central Avenue, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ  85004 liddyt@mcao.maricopa.gov Party name: Jospeh M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff Nancy Morawetz Washington Square Legal Services Inc. (212) 998-6430 245 Sullivan Street, 5th Floor New York, NY  10012 nancy.morawetz@nyu.edu Party name: Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. Robert Joseph Muise American Freedom Law Center (855) 835-2352 P.O. Box 131098 Ann Arbor, MI  48106 rmuise@americanfreedomlawcenter.org Party name: Thomas More Law Center, et al. Brian J. Murray Jones Day (312) 782-3939 77 West Wacker Dr. Suite 3500 Chicago, IL  60601-1692 bjmurray@jonesday.com Party name: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. Jennifer C. Newell American Civil Liberties (415)-343-0774 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA  94111 jnewell@aclu.org Party name: American Civil Liberties Union, et al. William J. Olson William J.Olson PC (703) 356-5070 370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4 Vienna, VA  22180-5615 wjo@mindspring.com Party name: U.S. Border Control, et al. Paul J. Orfanedes Judicial Watch, Inc. (202) 646-5172 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC  20024 porfanedes@judicialwatch.org Party name: Arizona State Legislature State Legislators for Legal Immigration James Forrest Peterson Judicial Watch, Inc (202) 646-5172 425 Third Street, SW Washington, DC  20024 jpeterson@juducualwatch.org Party name: Senator Russell Pearce Andrew J. Pincus Mayer Brown LLP (202) 263-3000 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC  20006-1101 apincus@mayerbrown.com Party name: State and Local Law Enforcement Officials Daniel J. Popeo Washington Legal Foundation (202) 588-0302 2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20036 rsamp@wlf.org Party name: U.S. Reps Lamar Smith, et al. William T. Robinson III. President (312) 988-5000 American Bar Association 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL  60654-7598 abapresident@americanbar.org Party name: American Bar Association E. Joshua Rosenkranz Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (212) 506-5380 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY  10019-6142 jrosenkranz@orrick.com Party name: Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service Jay Alan Sekulow American Center for Law & Justice (202) 546-8890 201 Maryland Ave., N.E. Washington, DC  20002 sekulow@aclj.org Party name: Members of Congress and the Committee to Protect America's Border Clifford M. Sloan Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP (202) 371-7000 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC  20005 cliff.sloan@skadden.com Party name: National Council of La Raza, et al. Henry L. Solano Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (212) 259-8000 1301 Avenue of the Americas Washington, DC  10019 hsolano@deweyleboeuf.com Party name: United Mexican States Republic of Haiti Argentina, et al. Herbert W. Titus William J. Olson, PC (703) 356-5070 370 Maple Avenue West, Suite 4 Vienna, VA  22180 - 5615 wjo@mindspring.com Party name: U.S. Border Control, et al. Barbara D. Underwood Solicitor General (518) 416-8016 Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY  10271 barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov Party name: New York, et al. Mark R. von Sternberg 1011 First Ave. (212)-419-3763 New York, NY  10022 mark.vonsternberg@archny.org Party name: Association of the Bar of the City of New York Seth P. Waxman Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (202) 663-6000 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC  20006 seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com Party name: Madeleine K. Albright, et al. Jonathan Weissglass Altshuler Berzon LLP (415) 421-7151 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Franscisco, CA  94108 jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com Party name: Service Employees International Union, et al. John W. Whitehead The Rutherford Institute (434) 978-3888 1440 Sachem Place Charlottesville, VA  22901 johnw@rutherford.org Party name: The Rutherford Institute Daryl M. Williams Baird Williams & Greer LLP (602) 256-9400 6225 N. 24th Street Suite 125 Phoenix, AZ  85016 darylwilliams@bwglaw.net Party name: Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, et al. Elizabeth B. Wydra Constitutional Accountability Center (202) 296-6889 1200 18th St., N.W., Suite 1002 Washington, DC  20036 elizabeth@theusconstitution.org Party name: Constitutional Accountability Center Barnaby W. Zall Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani, LLP (301) 231-6943 11300 Rockville Pike, #1200 Rockville, MD  20852 bzall@bzall.com Party name: American Unity Legal Defense Fund

Ann Romney to keynote Conn. Republicans’ dinner

By Associated Press  |   Thursday, March 29, 2012  |  http://www.bostonherald.com  |  Election 2012

 

Photo by AP (File)

 Ann Romney

 STAMFORD, Conn. — The wife of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is scheduled to be the keynote speaker for the Connecticut GOP’s annual Prescott Bush Awards Dinner.
State Republican Party Chairman Jerry Labriola announced Thursday that Ann Romney will appear at the April 23 event at the Stamford Marriott Hotel.
A Quinnipiac University poll released last week showed that Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, has strong support among Connecticut Republicans.
Romney garnered 42 percent of the vote. He was followed by former Sen. Rick Santorum with 19 percent.
The survey of 429 Republicans had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points
Connecticut, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York and Rhode Island are holding GOP primaries on April 24.



Posted on Monday, April 2nd, 2012 by ctgop

2012 Prescott Bush Awards Dinner

The Connecticut Republicans
Cordially Invite You To

Celebrate 34 Years of the

Prescott Bush
Awards Dinner

with
Keynote Speaker

Ann Romney

At The
Stamford Marriott Hotel
243 Tresser Boulevard
Stamford, Connecticut

Monday, April 23, 2012

Dinner: $250 per person
Photo: $2,500 per person
Table of 10: $2,500 per table
VIP Meet and Greet: $5,000 per person

Cocktails 6 p.m.
Dinner 7 p.m.