Harry Mitchell supports a boycott of Arizona?


Espressopundit notes that Harry Mitchell has declined to join Democrat Representative Ann Kirkpatrick in denouncing radical far left AZ Congressman Raul Grijalva’s call for a boycott of Arizona over SB1070. This is really embarrassing for a sitting Arizona Congressman to call for a boycott of our own state.  This is more evidence that Mitchell has become out of touch with Arizona voters and lurched to the far left where Grijalva hangs out. Grijalva received a 0 rating from the American Conservative Union last year out of 100.  Like Grijalva, Mitchell voted for the socialist healthcare bill, corporate bailouts, and tax increases.

According to this article, the boycott is working and hurting the City of Phoenix. Grijalva and Mitchell must hate Arizona.

70% of Arizonans support SB1070. Mitchell represents a Republican-majority district, so the percentage of voters in his district that support SB1070 is likely even higher.  David Schweikert, the leading Republican in the race against Mitchell, has capitalized on Mitchell’s tacit endorsement of anti-Arizonanism with a new website calling for voters to boycott Mitchell. Let’s hope the voters are paying attention and vote out this Grijalva wanna be who represents Nancy Pelosi and her district better than he does Arizona’s District 5.


Comments

  1. I never thought Mitchell was a conservative Democrat. He has consistently voted with the left on almost every bill since he’s been in Congress. I am in District 5 and I remember when he voted for the billion dollar bailouts and I decided that was enough, we need to find someone to run against him. The final straw was when he voted for the healthcare bill. Please, David, BEAT MITCHELL!

  2. So because he doesnt specifically denounce something he is for it? That seems like a great rational.

    I am not exactly sure this is worth posting. It is possible Mitchell is just avoiding things that have to do with SB1070 in supporting or opposing it… Not commenting on something isnt really news.

  3. Carlist says:

    Please make sure that “Harriet” Mitchell aka Susan BitterSmith doesn’t get the GOP nod!

    If that tragedy occurs we can look for at least two more years of “Big Tent” political alignments within District 5.

  4. When you have liberal AZ Congressman Ann Kirkpatrick denouncing the boycott, but not Harry Mitchell, that’s news. This boycott is the biggest news across American right now. If you have liberal Kirkpatrick running to denounce it, it’s pretty serious. Mitchell is a far left Democrat who has just shown us he is closer to Rep Grijalva politically than Kirkpatrick. That is scary.

  5. Hamilcarbarca says:

    You want to throw Mitchell out? Vote for the only true Conservative candidate: he is very honest, has enormous integrity, and will represent us, and not just do deals. Vote Schweikert!

  6. James Davidson says:

    Johnny:

    It depends on the circumstances whether silence is properly considered acquiesence or not. In this case, Mitchell probably would like to see the whole thing just go away. He can’t. Liberal cities in other states illegally have taken up the boycott cudgel to beat Arizona into submission. That is not an occasion that permits silence, and in these circumstances the silence of a hometown congressman should be treated as acquiesence and agreement. There is no other way reasonably to read it.

    By the way, in case you are wondering why I said other cities illegally have adopted a boycott against Arizona, their actions violate the Constitution’s commerce clause and at the right moment someone should haul them into court over it.

  7. James Davidson,
    What is your thinking in regards to commerce clause?

  8. James,

    Could you explain that commerce clause argument I havent heard this from anyone yet. I think you could be right because it is specifically cities doing this. But I think the states could adopt this policy if they wanted.

  9. James Davidson says:

    No state and no political subdivision of a state can erect undue barriers to interstate commerce. States are allowed to favor their own citizens in small ways in commerce, but not in an arbitrary or irrational manner. To discriminate against Arizona-based businesses in favor of businesses from any of the other 49 states places an undue burden on interstate commerce. I have the same right to do business in California, or with a California city, as does a citizen of New Mexico or Nevada or Utah or so on. If Los Angeles or San Francisco discriminates against me by refusing to do business with me on equal footing with citizens of any of the other states simply because I come from Arizona clearly violates the commerce clause. It is wholly irrational and arbitrary to deny me an equal right to do business with them simply based on my state of residence.

    What is odd is that the only purely irrational actions are the boycotts. Punishing a third party because of what the Legislature did makes zero sense.

    Mitchell and all the other liberals in our delegation should be defending us and lobbying the administration to stop this clear discrimination and violation of the commerce clause. His silence, and refusal to stick up for Arizona business, is what calls him out.

  10. The Mole says:

    Mitchell needs to stay in Tempe and let pigeons land on him. Like his statue, crap just keeps building up on him. His own people have even noticed.

    Time for Schweikert to step up and retire Mitchell.

  11. James Davidson,
    Would not the difference here be that the city governments are making a decision to not purchase good or services but are not dictating to private businesses in the locale that they are prohibited from doing so. I think the latter would be a violation but the former is not.

    BTW, I think boycotts are largely ineffective and except in a few cases are counterproductive.

  12. James Davidson says:

    Todd:

    A city government cannot refuse to do business with citizens of another state simply because they are from that state. For example, Phoenix could not legally refuse to do business with companies from Nevada. We are, after all, the United States, with an accent on United. The point of the commerce clause is to sweep aside barriers to interstate commerce. The Constitution leaves it to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, though states can impose some regulation in limited areas so long as it is not discriminatory, and is not arbitrary or capricious. Thus, California could adopt quality standards for goods and services, so long as they had a rational basis and so long as she did so even-handedly and did not use them as a sham to favor Californians against citizens of the other states.

    For their part, neither San Francisco nor Los Angeles has a legal right to refuse to do business on an equal footing with Arizona businesses. Mitchell, Kirkpatrick, Giffords, etc., should be screaming bloody murder against any city of any other state refusing to do business with citizens or companies based in Arizona. They have no right to discriminate against us, least of all on such an irrational basis. Mitchell has betrayed us by silence.

    It is different, if dumb, for a private business to discriminate against Arizona. It is a free country. On the other hand, someone smarter than me should look into whether a monopoly, such as the National Football League, or Major League Baseball, can boycott us without violating the antitrust laws. Group boycotts are often no-nos.

  13. Wow. Stop regurgitating wiki summaries of the commerce clause and its application. It’s a complicated issue that changes with the composition of the court.

  14. James Davidson says:

    ConLaw:

    Are you a public schooler?

    If you really know con law, which I doubt, you will know the law on the commerce clause has only changed at the margins since the Supreme Court decided Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma in 1955, and what changes have occurred dealt with how far Congress’s power extends, such as U.S. v. Lopez, the guns at schools case decided in 2000. That’s 55 years in which the parameters of the commerce clause have been established beyond much debate. If any more tinkering is going to happen, it will be to trim back the breadth of Congress’s power. It will not be to expand the power of states or cities to erect barriers against trade.

    It is basic that states and their political subdivisions cannot impose unreasonable barriers to trade. One of the major reasons the original 13 states abandoned the articles of confederation and adopted the constitution was to eliminate barriers to interstate trade. Recall Franklin’s quip that New Jersey was a beer barrel tapped at both ends with the beer flowing into New York and Pennsylvania. That did not go over so well in 1787, to say nothing of the exponentially more integrated and complex national economy of 2010.

    Read art.1, sec. 10, and Federalist nos. 11 and 44, and then come back and let’s talk. In the meantime, suffice it to say that no state and no state’s political subdivisions can erect arbitrary barriers to trade, and a boycott of Arizona business because the Legislature passed 1070 and the governor signed it is as irrational and arbitrary as they come.

    Mitchell should be screaming about it. His silence shows he stands with the boycotters and not with Arizona.

  15. James Davidson,
    What about the ‘market participant’ exception? I think there is a difference between the city as a purchaser from choosing not to purchase from a state and the city (or state) from blocking trade with another state.

  16. I did’nt vote for Mitchell last time and I’m not voting for him this time. He is a Nancy Pelosi in male clothing. He votes with her on everything. David Schweiklert has my vote. We have to Mitchell out of there.

  17. James Davidson says:

    Todd,

    You raise a good point. The “market participant” exception lets a state or city favor its own citizens within limitations in purchasing goods and services. But that’s not what’s going on here. San Francisco, Los Angeles, etc., are boycotting Arizona and only Arizona, on an utterly irrational basis. They are discriminating against Arizona in favor of the other states, as well as in favor of their own citizens. It makes no sense whatsoever to punish an Arizona business for what the Legislature did or didn’t do. If each state or city sets itself up as the judge of the policy decisions made by other states and cities, and enforces its judgments by a boycott, we are back to the hodgepodge of the articles of confederation. The dormant commerce clause doctrine probably would block it, as might privileges and immunities and equal protection.

    Regardless of where they stand on the merits of 1070, Mitchell, Kirkpatrick, Giffords, and Pastor need to get on the stick and start lobbying the administration to stop this boycott nonsense. Grijalva is irredeemable on this, but the others have their duty to do to Arizona. Mitchell is breaching it.

  18. James Davidson,
    It seems to me the exception does apply in this case but will be interested to see this addressed.

    As I indicated, I think the boycott is a bad tactic, but is it irrational? There is a great deal of debate about what the implications of the law will be and if some localities find it such an offense to civil rights why would they not have the choice to not use public money to purchase things in Arizona thereby providing Arizona with tax revenue. Also, if localities are concerned that their employees might be harassed or be treated unfairly in the state, is it irrational to bar public sponsored travel?

    I agree that if this approach was widely used, we would have localities boycotting states because their gun laws are too permissive/restrictive or they have different laws on abortion or the celebrate Confederate History month. This would turn into quite a mess but I am not sure how it would be stopped other than the fact that it would be economically suicidal.

  19. James Davidson says:

    Todd,

    The boycotting cities do not do business with the State of Arizona. They do business with people and companies located in Arizona, all of whom had nothing to do with 1070, and many of whom probably did not even know about it until it was an accomplished fact. It is highly irrational to punish the innocent. I would love to punish San Francisco for refusing a berth to the Iowa, but how? without harming the businesses or employees who had nothing to do with such an outrage? When you figure out how to draw up an indictment of a whole people, let me know. Burke couldn’t.

    How to stop the liberal illegal boycotts? We have courts. An Arizona trade association can and should file suit for an injunction on behalf of its members. We would get the answer as to whether the market participant exception can be stretched to give the liberal boycotters a fig leaf. I don’t think it covers this outrage, you think it might, thus is the business of courts.

    Another way is for Arizona’s delegation to weigh in loudly with the Obama administration. Unfortunately, they haven’t and won’t. That is how Mitchell has betrayed us. Like Pontius Pilate, he washed his hands of it.

Speak Your Mind

*