Skip to comments.Supreme Court has insulted our intelligence with its decision: we’ll give them ours in November
Posted on 06/25/2012 9:47:08 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
This morning we have once again been reminded that our system of checks and balances no longer functions for the good of the American people.
Nine lawyers in the Supreme Court, hiding behind legalese, written by other lawyers has decided that Americans, through our various states, have no right to either enforce the sovereignty and security of our borders or demand that the federal governments lawyers do so.
We dont count in the cynical view of the lawyers that have wormed their way into controlling our lives essentially because WE say so.
Oh they claim the United States Constitution sanctions and supports their denial of our rights of self-defense, but the truth is they have stolen away the power of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution by bowing to claims that what is abundantly obvious is not at all obvious. In effect the Supreme Court has cynically asked us Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes?
To say this was not a political interpretation of law twisted to favor those who would erase our borders and open the flood gates of the world to our midst is the type of infuriating insult we have to take with us as we vote to correct what has happened to our government from top to bottom.
This decision ought to be carried like a bloody shirt by every American alarmed by the ever quickening pace of the destruction of our freedoms.
They have reduced our lives to a childrens game of tag as the Supreme Court acting as egalitarian school yard monitors admonish us to Play nice with the new children!
Well we dont want to play nice with the new Children! We want to kick them the hell out of our country....
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
1) It actually was eight, Kagan recused herself.
2) Scalia wrote a dissent that would have upheld the entire law.
It's a good idea to get all the facts straight before launching into a blog screed.
By voting for who?
Tell us again how the November elections are going to chastize any of them in any way. They have lifetime tenure. And until the GOP gains a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, we won't see liberal usurpers removed from office after impeachment.
I’m with coach on this! Let’s elect 9 new justices in the 2012 Supreme Court elections! Yeah!
I used to have a lot of respect for that site, but this is goofy. It negates a lot of positives.
One of the worse results of this ruling is obama’s poll numbers will go up. There are many dummies in this country who will think “obama was right. That means he really is smart. I’m voting for him again.”
AZ should immediately file a Writ of Mandamus to force the Feds to DO THEIR JOB then
AZ should immediately file a Writ of Mandamus to force the Feds to DO THEIR JOB then
Immigration restrictionists lose every election run on their issue.
Until they start winning elections, they aren’t going to tell anyone anything.
America, turn out the lights, it is over. What is there to save anymore? Also realize that IF there were 70 Senators with (R) behind there names if a crucial vote came that protected the people rather than the PTB you can be assured that as many as needed would sell out. The only answer anymore is for the states to leave this corrupt non-sovereign USA.
So I guess we only need to vote in six new justices now in November.
“These people have in effect erased our borders. Now it is up to us to correct this injustice in November.
Tell us again how the November elections are going to chastize any of them in any way. They have lifetime tenure. And until the GOP gains a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, we won’t see liberal usurpers removed from office after impeachment.”
How about by electing a conservative Senate. You DO understand how Supreme Court Justices are nominated and confirmed - or did I speak too fast for you?
These people have in effect erased our borders. Now it is up to us to correct this injustice in November.>>>>>>>>>
Bullshit, do you think this will make a difference? Do you think Romney will enforce our borders? This is about power, nothing more, to keep the beasts in Washington fed. The progressives, socialists, and the GOPe who have given us the likes of McCain, Dole, Ford, and others have destroyed our Constitutional Republic for their own gains. It is no longer “by the people, for the people” but by the politicians,for the politicians. As for rallies, writing, and phone calls, see where that got us. Call me when the patriots get serious.
Actually, the supremes got this one 100% correct...
Arizona overreached by trying to enact it’s own immigration laws, which according to the constitution are powers granted to the federal government..
The feds overreached by trying to micromanage local and state law enforcement, which are powers not specifically granted to the feds, reserving them for the states and the people respectively...
This may not be the POPULAR decision, but it is the correct one...
And once again, how does that impact the justices currently on the bench?
It doesn't. They will leave when they are good and ready.
Don't double down on bad writing with being a jerk.
Alito joined Thomas and Scalia on three of the four. Kennedy is grooming Roberts to be the next center of attention whore. Basically they held that enforcing the law is against the law and states are are no longer sovereign which would have come as a great surprise at the original Constitutional Convention.
And when the fedgov fails to act? I'll be interested to ready Scalia's dissent.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself.
The decision is crap. Did you read it and the dissents?
Isn't that what George W. Bush wanted to do by signing the North American Union treaty, without Congressional debate or approval, back in his day?
Bush, the Republican who ‘kept us safe’, never sealed the southern border despite the damage to American person and property, and turned a deaf ear to the cries by Americans to enforce the laws and Constitution he swore to.
The GOPe wants it as bad as the Dems, make no mistake. While Romney may be ‘better’ than 0, a Romney win is not the same as victory.
Perhaps the argument is not being framed correctly by the states...
Perhaps the state suffers financial damages because of the inabliity and/or unwillingness of the feds to do their constitutionally mandated jobs...
Perhaps when individual citizens of a state are harmed or killed by illegals, the states attorney general needs to take up their cause..
and sue the federal government for any and all damages incurred, hold those that refuse to carry out their duties PERSONALLY liable and responsible...
The ball is in the states court, specifically the attorney generals of each state...
This coming election, make sure the person you vote for your state attorney general is on board with this, regardless of political affiliation..
Oh please.... by all means... enlighten me
Oh, and don’t freepmail me any more over my critiques, make your comments here on the open thread.
I will reserve judgement until I read both the decision and the dissent. In the meantime, in my opinion the only true federalist on the court is Thomas. Scalia will toss federalism overboard in cases where he thinks the feds should have powers he approves of - with Raich being the prime example.
It is a bit of a sad statement that a federalist argument generally doesn't suffice in front of SCOTUS in this day and age.
In the face of so many Republicans (including three GOP presidents) that have done absolutely nothing about the border, where do these people in this forum get the notion any Republican will do anything about the border and illegal immigration.
You are so correct. Now, what to do about the infestation of Republican lemmings in what is supposed to be a conservative forum?
Read Scala’s dissent and weep.
How come if this ruling is correct and good and so right for our side, I never saw any posts prior to today hoping for what we got?
“Now it is up to us to correct this injustice in November. “
I’m pretty sure you don’t get to vote out the court, a single Prez might get 1 or 2 nominations, and each justice is seated for life. In other words: The court couldn’t care less about your vote in November.
.....There is only one person on the court that should not have been allowed to vote , but then again I am not a wise Latina. That more than a third of its members do not follow Jesus Christ is also of no importance to the MSM. Perhaps one day soon there will also be a disproportional number of gays and Muslims on this so called court then we will truly be a great nation again. LOL
I did not say the ruling was right for conservatives... It is, however, right for those of us who beleive in the constitution as written, and those of us who are not afraid of those that want popular rulings instead of constitutional ones..
Sorry, I gotta go with Scalia instead of you on this subject. The last paragraph of his dissent:
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereigntynot in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
Tough job lighting a bulb missing a filament but I'll give it a shot.
Number 1: States are soverieign and have the ability to exclude from their borders anybody they please unless forbidden to do so by federal statute or constitutional provision. No such happenstance exists here but if there is a brilliant guy like yourself should be able to direct us to that law.
Number 2: There are no conflicts between existing federal statutes and the law written in Arizona. All the legalese in the majority not withstanding. But go ahead and post one in common sense ordinary language. Should be easy right?
Number 3: That the executive chooses, in a belligerent unlawful manner, to not execute the laws as written by Congress does not require the states to follow their unlawful belligerent lead.
OK your turn.
You should check this mook out.. major pimping and little else:
I will try and remain civil to you, even though you obviously have no intention of being civil to me, or to even attempt to be civil, but, I will try...
Article 1, Section 8 of that pesky document, you know, that there constitution thingie, gives power over naturalization to the feds..... case law already settles that naturalization and immigration both fall under jurisdiction of the feds.. kinda period, like..
All that there fancy legalese IS the decision... to try and remove it from the discussion is to base your decision on pure emotion... now, what other political group that we know of bases their decisions on pure emotions???
Your refusal to accept the so called “Legalese” proves your emotional based response.
As I stated previously, the states attorney generals need to gather up all the damages caused their states by the refusal of the feds to enforce their own immigration laws, and SUE the feds, naming the people refusing to carry out the laws of the land by name, and making it as personal as possible and still maintain the government culpability..
Now I have given you a factual, non emotion based responses to all your questions... bet you cannot do the same
And quit whining for peats sake. You got sarcasm because you gave sarcasm. Grow up.
PS: Are you a penumbra guy? Because every time the majority used the word "field" I was seeing penumbra.
what’s a “penumbra?”
It goes beyond failure to enforce. The feds MANDATE that illegals be schooled, get food stamps and health care. Any such lawsuit would be hamstrung by the fact that the costs due to illegals are a MIX of damages due to failure to enforce and costs due to deliberately mandating.
Arizona was simply asking to enforce some of the federal laws that the feds often fail to enforce, either through being overworked or by deliberate sabotage such as what Obama did with his backdoor amnesty.
Arizona finds itself hindered by the votes of coastal liberals who are generally immune to the problems of rampant illegal immigration.
And that is what, IMO, Scalia was referencing regarding sovereignty of Arizona - if the feds won't enforce the law, Arizona will, because it bears the brunt of the problems.
Arizona is not seeking to set federal policy. Just have existing federal policy enforced. The damages caused by the failure of the fedgov to act go well beyond monetary.
Wow, my post alerting you to the current pimping was removed. None of the definitions of bad freeper behavior really apply any more. Basically, if the mod likes what’s being said, it’s allowed. If not, it’s removed. When there is a claim to have a definition or a rule or anything of that sort, all those rules have been circumvented.
I think the objection to your post was that it was too long.
If I’da had to look at all that pimpin’ on a smart phone I’da got Carpal Tunnel.
I think the objection to your post was that it was too long.
***There is nothing in the rules about posts that are too long. Like I said, if a mod likes what it says, it stays. If not, it goes, for similar excuses as you have found.
If it was painful to read all that data, shouldn’t they have done something about the blog pimp who generated all that?
Could the states not sue the Federal government, and force them to enforce the law? How can the President say, “We will not longer enforce the law?”
It had nothing to do with that. Another poster complained via Abuse and your post was large enough to make it difficult to scroll past it. Hence it was removed.
Thanks for addressing that. Is it in the rules that a post is supposed to be a certain length?
Do the mods do anything about blog pimps? When is a blog pimp a blog pimp?
Don't axe me, I'm just a street vendor around here.
It’s a judgement call. The poster in question does respond often to threads other than his own. We generally zot the ones who only post from their blogs and add nothing else, or get overly-snotty to other posters.
#1: no, states may not exclude from their borders anyone whom the federal government has - legally under federal law - permitted into the country.
The problem is that the federal government has abdicated its component of this principle, leading to...
#2: AZ tried to duplicate and enforce federal law on the matter, which (see #1) it lacks power to.
#3: Practical duplication of #2.
The federal government being empowered with a monopoly on naturalization & visas, and being obligated to defend borders, the abdication of said powers & obligations creates a terrible problem for those whom the Constitution relieves of a natural right thereto. AZ had best rediscover Writ Of Mandamus and/or State Militias.
 - and I don’t mean those camouflage-wearing traffic cops some states call a “militia”. They’d be wise to discover the gaping hole in US Code 922(o).
Another poster complained via Abuse and your post was large enough to make it difficult to scroll past it. Hence it was removed.
***Then what are the admin moderator’s guidelines? Someone else went to all the trouble of posting an entire thread about “giant catholic” posts:
Those posts typically have quite a few pictures and are even harder to scroll through.
If it is enough to call “abuse” via the abuse button, then some clarity would be in order from the moderator. Otherwise, the obvious issue of FReepers hitting the abuse button because they don’t like what is being said is the real issue, not the length of the post.