The NY Times jumps the gun on the Arizona decision and here is why . . . .

Ruling Against Arizona Is a Warning for Other States — A federal judge in Arizona on Wednesday broadly vindicated the Obama administration's high-stakes move to challenge that state's tough immigration law and to assert the primary authority of the federal government over state lawmakers in immigration matters. . .

Editor's notes: this is a NY Times story and it could not be more misplaced. No one "in the know," believed that a Clinton appointed activist judge would have decided differently. OF COURSE she struck down the law's primary clauses. And, OF COURSE, this is only the first step. The article uses the term "vindicated" in its appraisal of the Court's decision. The purpose of the Times article ?? To do what the author could to influence the outcomes of advancing national opinion. "Vindicated" bears a sense of finality, does it not? And there is nothing final about this decision.

We all know there are at least two additional judicial steps in this vetting process: the 9th District Court's review and the Supreme Court. While the clowns at the White House and the NY Times are giving each other "high fives" over this decision, there is the distinct possibility that after the High Court's decision, their faces will be sullen and their rhetoric will be something other than gracious. Such is the M.O. of this adolescent corp of "leaders."

Point of post: "vindicated" is hardly the word of the day. There are 18 other states currently writing similar laws. Why have they waited to get their legislation on the books? Well, they were waiting for this particular decision. They are not giving up. They see no "vindication" of the Feds position. They only see the official judicial debate framed in concrete legal opinion. Let the revisionist writing begin !! The coming avalanche of state legislation will reflect "corrections" to the "weaknesses" of the Arizona law. For the conservative onlookers, we are saying the "best is yet to come."
.