Skip to comments.Supreme Court will hear Arizona immigration case
Posted on 12/12/2011 8:34:46 AM PST by Jagermonster
Kagan recuses herself
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will take the case of Arizonas tough immigration crackdown law, adding yet another contentious clash between the Obama administration and the states to its docket.
[ * * * ]
In its notice, the court said Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself from the decision to take the case. She was the administrations solicitor general before joining the court in August 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Wonder how much extortion is going on NOW?.
She is doing it because when Obamacare comes before the court she will not and site this case as her being fair. This is a head fake.
Nope not a chance. I suspect a method to her madness.
She is establishing her Bona Fides for being fair so that when the Obamacare case comes up everyone especially the Media, will say what a great gal she is, see? She recused herself from the illegal immigrant case so that proves she doesn’t have to for Obamacare.
Always thinking ahead these liberals.
I am not Romney cannot take a $10,000 dollar bet, but if I did, I would bet when Obamacare comes up she will be on the case.
The view that might be prevalent is that kagen has not stated that she would not recuse, and that there is still the possibility she will. Its left to our imagination.... oh, and on how hard it is to withstand the outcry to do the right thing.
That said, take this example of how she recuses to be a statement that she HAS (past tense!) decided to NOT recuse on zer0care. There should be a non-stop loud drumming to CHANGE HER MIND to get the hell out of there on that case.
Question: Whenever the court has their private meetings about this and that, I hope Roberts has in place a “wall” to shield kagen from an discussions that mention zer0care.
I will laugh my ASS off if Elena Kagan turns out to be the Demon-rat version of David Souter! What if SHE becomes the justice appointed by a Demonrat who turns out to be a moderate-conservative?!
Consider: she has been seen at a Washington D.C. area gun range shooting with Antonin Scalia! :)
What’ve you been smokin’?
A DC area gun range? No such thing unless it's FBI HQ. The security risks are such that it makes me think it probably was the underground range at FBI.
I thought the same thing the minute I read the headline.
“A DC area gun range? No such thing “
It was “a Washington D.C. area gun range...”
Hate to burst your bubble, but there are several within 15-20 miles of DC, including, oh, the one at NRA HQ in Fairfax. Friends own one not far away.
Now if only all liberal/ssocialist/progressive demonrats/Rinocrats would recuse themselves from politics or positions of authority we might have a chance.
If they were sane and or really cared they would simply resign.
What a nice thought...it makes me feel good just to think about it.:)
“”May bode well for Obamacare Decision, too.”
She is doing it because when Obamacare comes before the court she will not and site this case as her being fair. This is a head fake.”
Your likely right about this. One of is not the most important attribute of a federal judge is to at least appear nominally just. She would likely find that more difficult to accomplish if she could not point to some instance where she recognized her own conflict of interest.
The object is to inspire other people to have faith in her “benevolent” & “fair” judgements.
In any-case If the Feds rule against Arizona they will in long run not only be shooting the people in the foot, but most of all themselves. The Feds have little hope of effectively enforcing their own laws without the aid of our States.
Rule against Arizona and they send a chilling message to any State that might try to help them. That of course will prove devastating to Federal power in a wide range of areas.
Such a ruling setting our States at odds with Federal law enforcement will necessitate the creation and sustaining of a denture federal army of police to enforce the same in absence of the States.
An expensive and respondent army that will be very difficult to financially & politically justify in any significant or effective size.
So go ahead federal court rule against Arizona, I dare you. You will only be shooting yourself in the foot.
I suggest Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito hire food tasters, and that Kennedy order a pair of cast iron kneecap covers.
LOL Sorry, I don't think of 15-20 miles as being in the area. To me that sort of means being inside the city limits. For that to be true, I'll bet FBI HQ is still one of the few and the others being also LEO related. I stand corrected nonetheless.
In a sad commentary on the growth of government, 15-20 miles is now considered a close-in commute to DC. IF you can afford $500K for a ‘starter’ home, i.e., 1 BR condo. Just ONE suburban business/residential area (Tysons Corner VA) that had been farmland when I arrived here in the mid-60s has more people working there than in downtown Miami or Seattle. The investment of real estate for a shooting range would put its feasibility out of sight.
Some folks aren’t familiar with the scope a ‘major metropolitan area.’ DC’s commuting radius runs 50-60 miles or more in every direction. Commuter trains run out as far as Fredericksburg, VA. Folks come into DC from Harpers Ferry, WV by the MARK train to Union Station. Perhaps our most well-known commuter traveled daily between DC and Wilmington, DE, tho he’s an exception in more ways than this one ;) The “DC Metro Area” is huge. Too huge, IMO.
This is the best news I’ve heard in a while. I can’t see ruling against Arizona. What part of ‘illegal’ don’t people understand?
The 9th Circuit has previously ruled that Ariz. enforcing that part of existing law against employers [who employ illegals] AS constitutional. The employers NEVER took it up to the Supreme Court [because thy knew they would lose].
So, the flip-side of the law [enforcing against individual illegals] seems to probably to be constitutional too.
Kennedy kinda tipped his hand in cases where the original intent of the Constitution comes into play. In District of Columbia v. Heller, he [correctly] decided that the language of the 2nd Amendment allowed private citizens to own guns - not just the militia, as anti-gun advocates claimed.
When the Founders wrote the Commerce Clause - they OBVIOUSLY DID NOT mean it to REQUIRE anyone to buy a specific good or service ...
Kagan goes hunting with Scalia: