Reactions to the Supreme Court's Ruling on
Arizona v. United States, June
25, 2012 >
The White House
Statement
by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United
States
I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of
Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably
clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration
reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our
broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the
remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law
enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they
even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that
individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration
status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion
just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must
ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law
in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the
Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to
enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important
priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our
communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education –
which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this
month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who
were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their
own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on
comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and
security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a
nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to
use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of
all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We
can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values –
but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of
what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American
is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our
shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than
we found it.
###
U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
Statement by Secretary Napolitano on the
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States
"I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that
state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration
enforcement policies or priorities. DHS remains focused on enhancing
public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing
enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and
committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration
laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally. The Court’s
decision not to strike down Section Two at this time will make DHS’
work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational
enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can
remain focused on its priorities. Over the past three and half years,
this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the
border and to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws in a firm and
reasonable fashion. We continue to urge Congress to pass comprehensive
reform because nothing short of a comprehensive solution will resolve
the current patchwork of immigration laws. Finally, it is important to
note that today’s Supreme Court decision will not impact the memorandum
I issued on June 15th related to prosecutorial discretion
eligibility for productive members of society who were brought to the
United States as children."
Romney
for President
MITT ROMNEY: OBAMA
HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY LEADERSHIP ON IMMIGRATION
Boston, MA – Today,
Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement in response to the
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law:
“Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on
this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a
national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide
any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken
promise by this President. I believe that each state has the duty--and
the right--to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law,
particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its
responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an
immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years
later, we are still waiting.”
###
State
of Arizona, Office of the Governor
Statement
by Governor Jan Brewer
U.S.
Supreme Court Decision Upholds Heart of SB 1070
“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme
Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the
10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and
responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two
years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented
in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity
to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the
implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner
that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the
State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task.
The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of
law. That means every law, including those against both illegal
immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held
accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates
an individual’s civil rights
“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling.
Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the
Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop
and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce
this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the
Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I
issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made
available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am
confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly
and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can
be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona
will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics
in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will
allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years
ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that
chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with
the honor Arizona deserves.’”
###
Supreme
Court Upholds Arizona's SB 1070 Racial Profiling Provision
WASHINGTON, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the key portion of the anti-immigrant Arizona law SB 1070 -
the discriminatory provision that forces law enforcement to request
immigration papers of anyone they suspect might be undocumented. While
the court did not specifically consider the racial profiling or
unconstitutional search and seizure issues in this limited case, law
enforcement officers across the country have testified the law cannot
be enforced without racial profiling.
On a key point, the court agreed that only the federal government
should regulate immigration. The court also left the door open to
future legal challenges, which SEIU and other plaintiffs in other
lawsuits against SB 1070 are pursuing.
SEIU International Secretary-Treasurer Eliseo Medina responded to
the court's ruling:
"Today the Supreme Court agreed with us - that only the federal
government should regulate immigration and that states do not have the
right to create a fifty state patchwork of immigration laws. But today
is not a good day for justice in America. The Supreme Court ruled in
favor of the most egregious section of this discriminatory law that
defies the words etched in stone across the front of the august court
building: 'Equal Justice Under the Law.' Justice was NOT applied
equally in the Arizona case.
"The Supreme Court has upheld a portion of the law that cracks the
core of our principles - justice and equality, the very foundation
America's immigrant ancestors sought. The Arizona law, in effect,
legitimizes racial profiling.
"The Court may have decided, but we - the people - will have the
final say.
"This ruling makes clear that our campaign to mobilize Latino voters
and communities of color to organize and grow our electoral power is an
absolute necessity. On November 6, we will be heard at the ballot box.
And with our votes we will nullify the ruling by pushing Congress to
pass comprehensive immigration reform. We will defeat the politicians
who advance a racial profiling agenda, wedge-issue politics of
divisiveness, and the corporatizing of our democracy.
"It's up to Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform that
will silence the attacks on our immigrant communities in each state and
nullify bad court decisions. If lawmakers expect us to vote for them,
we will expect action by them.
"Make no mistake, we will look at each candidate and support those
who pledge to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform at the federal
level.
"With our growing numbers at the ballot boxes across this country in
November, we will ensure that this hostile era of public policy based
on discrimination and hatred will be replaced by fair and just
solutions for all of America.
"In the meantime, we urge the federal government to keep an eye on
Arizona and other states who may see this as a signal to go after
immigrants. It will take several weeks for this part of the law to be
allowed to go into effect and the federal government must ensure that
the civil rights of all people are protected while other legal
challenges are
pursued.
"Justice does not come easily, nor does it come swiftly. But it will
come.
"As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s words remind us: 'The arc of the
moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.'"
National
Coalition for Immigrant Women's Rights (NCIWR)
Immigrant
women's
group
gravely
concerned over U.S. Supreme Court's mixed decision on harsh immigration
law
Court upholds “papers, please” provision, strikes down
others
WASHINGTON — Today the United States Supreme Court rendered a mixed decision, striking down portions of SB 1070,
one of the harshest and most criticized immigration laws in the
country, while leaving others intact. Notably, the Court upheld the
“papers, please” provision of the law, which requires local law
enforcement to stop and question anyone who appears to be an immigrant
and has widely been interpreted as encouraging racial profiling. Many
civil rights leaders and immigration experts have predicted the Arizona
law would promote stigma and bias against Latinas and women immigrants,
leaving them more vulnerable to crimes like intimate partner violence
and less likely to seek needed services like prenatal care. Today the National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights
(NCIWR) expresses grave concern that even partially upheld SB 1070 is a
major setback for women immigrants.
“Women immigrants are making enormous social and economic
contributions in communities across the United States,” said Jessica
González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
(NLIRH), one of the two organizations that lead NCIWR. “Laws like SB
1070 completely ignore this reality — and reflect a broken system that
leaves women in the shadows. That’s why we are committed to working
toward comprehensive immigration reform.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is crucial, as it is likely to inform
immigration laws in states across the country. Already lawmakers in
about a dozen states have said they would seek to propose laws similar
to SB 1070 if the court upheld its key provisions.
“SB 1070, even with some provisions removed, threatens to tear
families apart and create a dangerous level of mistrust between law
enforcement and women immigrants who fear detention,” said Miriam
Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
(NAPAWF), an NCIWR co-leading organization. “By upholding one of the
most harmful provisions of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a
dangerous precedent.”
Today’s Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s SB 1070 comes as we
await the high court’s decision on the constitutionality of the
Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration’s landmark health care
reform legislation. Together, these decisions will have a profound
impact on the health and well-being of Latinas and immigrant
communities.
###
The National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights is
the leading national collaboration to specifically focus on women and
gender issues in the public discourse on immigration. The coalition
represents more than 60 leading organizations with a presence
nationally and in every state.
American
Immigration
Council
Supreme Court Limits
Arizona's Overreach on Immigration, Leaves Door Open to
Future Challenges to Racial Profiling Provision
June 25, 2012
Washington D.C. - In a blow to the state anti-immigration movement, the
Supreme Court ruled today that the authority to enforce immigration
laws rests squarely with the federal government, limiting the role that
states may play in crafting state-level answers to immigration
enforcement. By a 5-3 margin, the Court struck down three of the four
provisions of SB 1070 that were challenged by the Obama administration
as pre-empted under federal law. While the Court agreed that Arizona’s
attempt to limit immigration by creating new laws and new penalties to
punish undocumented immigrants was pre-empted, it found that a
provision requiring local police to investigate the legal status of
suspected undocumented immigrants was not pre-empted on its face. The
court read this provision very narrowly, however, leaving open the door
to future lawsuits based on racial profiling and other legal violations.
“Today’s decision makes clear that the federal government—and only the
federal government—has the power and authority to set the nation’s
immigration policies,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the
American Immigration Council. “Despite its strongly worded rejection of
Arizona's effort to set its own immigration policies, the Court adopted
a wait-and-see approach to the controversial racial profiling section
of the law. There is already ample evidence of discrimination and abuse
in Arizona, and many communities in the state will bear the brunt of
the Court's unwillingness to face that reality. It's time for Congress
to heed the dire warnings contained in this opinion and recommit to
fixing our broken immigration system.”
For additional information see:
Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States: What You Need to Know About
the Supreme Court Case Involving SB 1070
Q&A on What Arizona v. United States May Mean for States with
Similar Immigration Laws
Q&A Guide to State Immigration Laws: What you Need to Know if Your
State is Considering Anti-Immigrant Legislation
Bad for Business: How Harsh Anti-Immigration Legislation Drains Budgets
and Damages States’ Economies
###
American
Civil Liberties Union
ACLU Officials Respond
to Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law
Decision
Condemned as Being on the “Wrong Side of History”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the most hotly disputed part of
Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, which requires police to
determine the immigration status of someone arrested or detained when
there is “reasonable suspicion” a person is not in the U.S. legally.
Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive
director, condemned the ruling.
“By reinstating the “show me your papers” for now, the Court has left
the door open to racial profiling and illegal detentions in Arizona.
The ACLU has amassed an $8.77 million war chest to fight those battles
in court and to counter any and every anti-immigrant copycat measure in
other states. The xenophobic virus in Arizona must be contained before
it spreads to other states. These laws will devastate local economies,
undermine law enforcement and pit neighbor against neighbor. It’s a
toxic combination that threatens basic American values.”
Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU
Immigrants’ Rights Project, said the decision sets a dangerous
precedent.
“Today’s opinion leaves communities in Arizona in jeopardy by
reinstating the “show me your papers” provision for now. In leaving the
serious constitutional problems to be resolved in future litigation,
the Court fails to recognize how Arizona’s law will damage our
constitutional rights as soon as it goes into effect. But the Court
also delivered a sharp rebuke to Arizona by striking down three out of
four provisions. Today’s decision is not the end of the story. We will
ultimately win this battle in the courts and in the arena of public
opinion, because there is nothing good about these laws – they’re
discriminatory, they waste taxpayer money, and they wreck our economy.”
American
Constitution Society for Law and Policy
High Court ‘Rightly’
Invalidated Most of Arizona’s Harsh Anti-Immigration Provisions, ACS
President Caroline Fredrickson Says
Justices
Who Would Have Upheld Entire Law Show ‘Disconcerting Disconnect’
ACS President Caroline Fredrickson’s Statement on Arizona v. United
States:
“The Supreme Court rightly found several key provisions of Arizona’s
harsh immigration law to be an affront to the constitutional power of
addressing immigration matters that belongs exclusively to the Congress
and the president. Although the majority opinion leaves unsettled
the fate of Arizona’s ‘show me your papers’ provision, it sends an
otherwise strong message affirming the federal government’s authority
to set immigration policy. To do otherwise, would promote an untenable
patchwork of laws. Arizona cruelly flaunted the will of Congress and
the president in advancing a law that promotes racial profiling and
treats undocumented persons, as well as those thought to be
undocumented, as suspect.
“One of the most troubling aspects of today’s Supreme Court action
comes from the justices who would have upheld all of the challenged
provisions of the Arizona law. Those justices reveal a disconcerting
disconnect from the reality of what state sovereignty means.”
# # # #
The American Constitution Society for
Law and Policy (ACS), founded in 2001 and one of the nation's leading
progressive legal organizations, is a rapidly growing network of
lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other
concerned individuals. For more information about the organization or
to locate one of the more than 200 lawyer and law student chapters in
47 states and the District of Columbia, please visit www.acslaw.org.
United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Bishops Greet Supreme
Court Decision on Immigration with Hope, Caution
See
decision as step toward humane immigration reform
Seek
federal government’s strong role in immigration
Wary
that part of decision might lead toward racial profiling
WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops greeted
with hope and caution the June 25 Supreme Court decision to strike down
provisions of an Arizona immigration law that would have allowed
warrantless
arrests of people suspected of an offense that is deportable, that
would have
made it a crime to seek work in the state and that would have made
undocumented
presence a state crime.
The
bishops found hope in the decision in Arizona vs. United States and
said it reflects
the bishops' call for humane and just immigration laws and concern for
laws
that could tear families apart. Their caution lay in the lifting of an
injunction against immigrants having to show papers in some
circumstances.
The
bishops had filed a friend of the court brief in the case.
Archbishop José H.
Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops Committee
on Migration, expressed concern regarding the one part of the 5-3
decision that
narrowly upheld a provision that permits state law enforcement
personnel to
determine the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or
arrested
if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully in
the
United States, and to verify the immigration status of any person
arrested
before releasing that person.
In the opinion,
the justices left the door open that the provision that was upheld —
known as
2(B) of SB 1070 — could later be found unconstitutional.
"While we are concerned with the Court's decision to lift the
injunction on section 2 (B) of the law, we are encouraged that the
Court did
not rule it constitutional," Archbishop Gomez said. "As we articulated
in our amicus brief, the
implementation of this provision could lead to the separation of
families and
undermine the Church's ability to minister to the immigrant
population."
A copy of the brief can be found at http://www.usccb.org/ogc/amicus-briefs/upload/state-of-arizona-v-united-states-of-america.pdf
"We stand in
solidarity with our brother bishops in Arizona, as they prepare to
respond to
the implementation of this provision and its potential human
consequences,"
Archbishop Gomez said.
Opponents
of the law have expressed concern that the decision would lead to the
racial
profiling of immigrants and the violation of civil rights laws.
Archbishop
Gomez highlighted the Court's other provisions.
"The
Court's decision to strike down the other provisions of the Arizona law
reaffirms the strong role of the federal government in regulating
immigration,"
said Archbishop Gomez.
Archbishop
Gomez urged state governments not to rush to pass laws similar to SB
1070 and
called upon Congress to assume its responsibility and enact
comprehensive
immigration reform.He vowed that the
Catholic Church in the United States would continue to fight for humane
and
just reform of the nation's immigration system.
"The
U.S. Catholic bishops across the nation will urge their state
governments to
not pursue laws such as in Arizona, but rather to pursue humane reform
on the
federal level," Archbishop Gomez said."Humane enforcement of our
nation's laws are part of any solution, but
enforcement by itself, unjustly administered, only leads to abuses and
family
breakdown."
"The
Church will continue to stand by immigrants and their families and seek
justice
on their behalf," stated Archbishop Gomez.
---
Arizona vs. United States, U.S. Bishop, Archbishop Jose
Gomez, Committee on Migration, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
#####
American
Federation of Teachers
AFT Statement on Supreme Court Immigration Decision
WASHINGTON—Today American Federation of Teachers President Randi
Weingarten released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court’s
decision on the constitutionality of Arizona’s infamous immigration
legislation, commonly known as SB 1070.
“Today America’s highest court found unconstitutional three of four
provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, reaffirming the pre-eminent role
conferred upon the federal government in matters involving immigration.
Though the court appears to have narrowed the application of the
remaining section of the law and left open the possibility of further
challenges, it is troubling that individuals may still be subject to
racial profiling under this law.
“We are a nation enriched by its immigrants, and we must value our
diversity, not declare war on it. While the single provision of the law
upheld by the Supreme Court is deeply troubling, the decision to
invalidate most of SB 1070 constitutes a victory for some of our most
fundamental beliefs as a nation.
“SB 1070 and its copycat laws in Alabama, Georgia and other states
compromise the fundamental rights that we have worked so hard to embed
in our national consciousness. The AFT has a long and proud tradition
of advancing social justice and civil rights, and of fighting to give
not only our members and their families but all Americans access to a
better life. We are committed to providing an educational environment
that embraces differences and diversity, enabling all students to reach
their full potential regardless of citizenship status. The Supreme
Court’s ruling in this case is an important step forward in
re-establishing trust in schools and communities with large immigrant
populations across the country.”
###
Federation
for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)
FAIR
Applauds Supreme Court’s Decision Upholding the Right of State and
Local Governments to Protect Citizens against Illegal Immigration
(Washington, DC June 25, 2012) Dan Stein,
president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR),
called today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding key provision
of Arizona's immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, "an important
victory for the people of Arizona and citizens everywhere who want
their jobs, tax dollars and security protected from mass illegal
immigration.
"The United States Supreme Court has made it very clear that state
and local governments have an important role to play in enforcing
federal immigration laws. Even if the Obama administration refuses to
enforce most immigration laws, states have the power to deter and
discourage illegal aliens from settling or remaining within their
jurisdictions," continued Stein.
Coupled with last year's ruling, upholding Arizona's requirement
that all employers check the employment eligibility of the people they
hire using the federal E-Verify system, states now have broad latitude
to carry out a policy of attrition through enforcement.
"The Supreme Court has provided state and local governments with
clear guidelines of what they can do to discourage illegal immigration
and assist in immigration enforcement," said Stein. "It is now up to
them to choose whether to protect the interests of illegal aliens or
the interests of citizens. And, it is now up to Congress to hold the
Obama administration accountable for carrying out the nation's
immigration laws in a manner that protects the interests of the
American people in all 50 states."
FAIR's legal team is carefully reviewing today's ruling and will
issue a detailed analysis of what it will mean for the future of
immigration enforcement.
Judicial
Watch
Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court of the United States Decision
Upholding Key Provision of Arizona SB1070
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom
Fitton issued a statement today in response to today’s decision by the
Supreme Court of the United States,
upholding a key provision of SB 1070, Arizona’s illegal immigration
enforcement law, allowing police officers to check the immigration
status of individuals they arrest or stop for questioning whom they
suspect are in the U.S. illegally.
On April 11, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
upheld an injunction against enforcement of some of the law’s
provisions per the request of the Obama administration, prompting the
State of Arizona to petition the High Court (State of Arizona et
al., v. The United States of America).
Judicial Watch had previously defended the law on behalf of the
Arizona State Legislature. Most recently it filed an amicus
curiae
brief on behalf of former Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author
of SB 1070, and a separate brief on behalf of State Legislators for
Legal Immigration (SLLI). The amicus brief on behalf of
SLLI
was joined by 29 legislators from 20 states. In both briefs, Judicial
Watch argued that SB 1070 utilizes the state of Arizona’s
well-established police powers and therefore is not preempted by
federal law as the Obama administration maintains. Judicial Watch asked
the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
placing key provisions of SB 1070 on hold.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton stated:
This is a victory for the safety and
security of Arizona and the nation. The Supreme Court held that
local
police can to help enforce immigration law by inquiring about
immigration status. This sensible application of the law confirms
that
local law enforcement can use an additional tool to protect public
safety. We can expect dozens of states to enact laws further
empowering the police as Arizona did. The Obama administration
should
now focus on enforcing immigration laws rather than thwarting them.
WASHINGTON, June
5, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former Presidential
Candidate Gary Bauer congratulated Governor Scott
Walker for his win in Wisconsin's
recall
election,
calling
it
"another
sign
that
taxpayers
will award office holders ready to do the hard work of reigning in
out-of-control government spending."
Bauer, the chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, made
the following statement:
"I congratulate Governor Scott Walker
for his hard-fought victory tonight, and most especially for having the
courage of his convictions to fight the good fight. But the victory in Wisconsin is not Scott
Walker's alone. It is a victory for the hard-working
taxpayers of Wisconsin, who foot the
bill year after year. It is a victory for common sense over
powerful special interests. It is a victory that taxpayers in
every state can celebrate. It is a victory, yes, even for some
union members.
"Since Gov. Walker's reforms were enacted, tens of thousands of
state employees have opted to keep more of the money they earn rather
than let the public employees union siphon off their hard-earned
dollars. In other words, once given the choice, more than half of
the public employees union's members decided that they didn't need the
union. These reforms will pay real dividends for the taxpayers of
Wisconsin. They are the real winners tonight.
"The recall election is a sign of good things to come. The
power of the Big Labor bosses has finally been checked, not just in Wisconsin, but also in scores of other
states across the country. More governors, legislators and
taxpayers will be inspired to stand up against the liberal labor unions
and do what is truly in the best interests of their communities. Wisconsin's
10
Electoral College votes are now in play, and the anti-tax, small
government movement that swept the country in 2010 is about to sweep Barack Obama out of office in 154 days!"
Source: PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1drYR)