Skip to comments.Justice Kagan Recuses Herself From Case Involving Arizona Immigration Law
Posted on 12/12/2011 9:14:09 AM PST by Justaham
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.
Justice Elena Kagan will not take part in the Arizona case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.
Arguments probably will take place in late April, which would give the court roughly two months to decide the case.
Some 12 million illegal immigrants are believed to live in the United States, and the issue already is becoming a factor in the 2012 campaign. Republican Sen. John McCain said recently that large Hispanic populations in his home state of Arizona and elsewhere are listening carefully to what Republican candidates have to say on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Local cops stop a speeding car. The occupants are wearing masks and there are bank bags full of money in the car. Using liberal logic, the local cops should not question the driver about the bank robbery that was just called in as robbing banks is a federal crime.
Kagan’s recusal on this case is probably to establish her great ethical standards, and then she will hear the even more critical Obamacare case.
I think the Arizona case is only one of several state cases related to immigration that might make it to the SCOTUS, but there is only one Obamacare to be heard.
Republican Sen. John McCain said recently that large Hispanic populations in his home state of Arizona and elsewhere are listening carefully to what Republican candidates have to say on immigration.
Screw you Juan McCain.
Actually its the opposite. Kagan and her supporters will argue that this shows how honest and fair she is. And if she doesn’t recuse herself in the obama-care case; it means she feels she can come to an honest decision. Plus she may know what Kennedy’s feelings are on the subject and figure a 4-4 tie is still a win.
Even if Kennedy sides with AZ its a minor matter compared to Obama-care.
To the contrary, this is a strategic ploy to give her credibility in her decision to not recuse herself from the commie-care arguments.
What sort of Moron nominates a justice that is constantly recusing herself all the time....
Oh that Idiot in Chief....
Since she announced her recusal early on this one, my first take, too, is that this is a strong signal that she will NOT recuse herself on Obamacare. She has surely heard all the objections about that by now, but she has failed to respond to them.
In other words, her marching orders are to hear that case, no matter what.
Despite her recusal, the conservative side still has to muster 5 justices in order to get a conservative ruling. Same as if she were still on the case. That is the unfortunate math.
With her recusal, the more likely outcome will be a deadlock, which is a victory for the libs, since the “ruling on the field” (i.e. the previous injunction against AZ by a district court) will be allowed to stand.
If her vote mattered more than that, there is no way she would have recused.
Strategery, not ethics.
Now isn’t this case on appeal because a lower court stated that the most important parts of Obamacare are unconstitutional? Or was it one of the other cases? If it was the former case, wouldn’t a 4-4 tie let the ruling stand...there-bye a loss for Obamacare?
Somebody enlighten me...
What about “La Raza” er, The Race bitch—Sodamayor?
I don’t think the administration really cares about ‘winning’ this case. If they lose, they still ‘tried’, and will get credit for it in liberal and immigrant circles....and since alot of illegals are self selecting to high tail it back to Mexico (better economic opportunity), their use as voters has already been diminished.
And, in illogical media circles, Kagan’s recusal here will absolve her of any requirement to do it on the Obamacare case.
I can just hear obama now...”What is she supposed to do recuse herself from everything?”
Actually its the opposite. Kagan and her supporters will argue that this shows how honest and fair she is. And if she doesnt recuse herself in the obama-care case; it means she feels she can come to an honest decision. Plus she may know what Kennedys feelings are on the subject and figure a 4-4 tie is still a win.
Even if Kennedy sides with AZ its a minor matter compared to Obama-care.
True and true. My guess she knows what the vote will be so she can skip this one and vote on 0bamacare.
The pig sotomayer needs to recuse her racist butt from this case as well. The last thing we need on this case is a “wise latina” getting a vote on the matter.
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner!
She needed to recuse herself in a case (any case) so Democrats could make the argument that Kegan would recuse herself from Obamacare if she had a conflict.
The fact that she picked this case to recuse herself indicates that she is certain that the result will not change without her vote (i.e., she counted the votes when the Supreme Court voted to take the case and determined that it will either be affirmed or reversed on at least a 5 to 3 vote).
Usually if a recusal is going to occur, it will happen at the same time the Court announces it will take a case. Since the Court has already stated it will review Obamacare and there were no recusal announcements at that time, I don’t expect one from Kagan.
Um... this case is on immigration law, not ObamaCare.
If she has to. I guess Obama should have thought about that before he nominated someone straight from his administration.
Au contraire! Changing the composition of the electorate via progressive immigration policies is as much a goal of the progressives as government mandates upon its residents via the Commerce Clause.
A tie in the Arizona case probably means losing in the cases of other states.
Immigration can be enforced by states. This is why we had the North fighting the South.
The truth in the Constitution is of course better: SCOTUS is the court of original jurisdiction for suits involving the States, befitting their dignity.
Louisiana recently employed this little understood point by taking their suit over the Census directly to the SCOTUS - not bothering to slug it out with the tenured radicals in the Federal judiciary.
And of course that case is about illegal aliens as well - as in whether they can be counted in the Census for apportionment.
The disaster known as Mexico is tearing apart the United States. We have no such problems with Canada. When will the mess be cleaned up?
Preserving our Union is one thing the military exists for.
My comment was mostly about Obamacare. I believe the last lower court declared it Constitutional. These must be the people who think the Constitution is a living, breathing document made out of Silly Putty!
The 10th enumerates powers not enumerated by the feds to the state.
However, this argument isn’t applicable to immigration. it’s patent nonsense. Immigration, remains, as it always has been, and always will be, a federal responsibility.
You simply cannot have a union that works otherwise. Well you can, but that’s part of what sovereignty is, where the government has control over who can and who cannot enter.
I understand the desire, but the states cannot be the ones enforcing it because that is a balkanization of the US. You might as well go at it alone.
When a Justice recuses from a case, that is announced when the Court announces that they voted to hear the case, because the recused Justice doesn't vote on the decision to hear the case. (That is why Kagan's recusal was announced today, together with the Court's decision to hear the Arizona case.) Kagan did not recuse from the vote to hear the Obamacare cases.
Can a Justice later recuse from a case, after the decision has been made to hear the case? I would expect that to be true, hence the growing pressure on Thomas and Kagan regarding ObamaKare
You are so right, the deadlock will give Libs the victory! By the way don’t look for her to recruise herself for health care! crappy Libs!
“Kagans recusal on this case is probably to establish her great ethical standards, and then she will hear the even more critical Obamacare case.”
I think you’re absolutely right about that. The clear-cut moral and ethical thing would be for her to recuse herself on Obamacare, but since when has the BHO gang ever done the moral or ethical thing?
“Screw you Juan McCain.”
Yes - Juan certainly pandered to them enough, and he still managed to lose the election for us, didn’t he?
Now if she would only do this for her work on [BO]-Care!
Yes, you nailed it.
It's like when the ACLU defends Illinois Nazis in order to fake impartiality.
“She has surely heard all the objections about that by now, but she has failed to respond to them.”
She’s got to know how clear it is that she SHOULD recuse herself from the Obamacare case, which is only reinforced by her determination despite that to stay on that case.
By God, Clarence Thomas had better NOT recuse himself. That one’s a real stretch by the Left - yet they’ll clamor for it and still cry foul if our side calls Kagan out for her blatant conflict of interest.
“If she has to. I guess Obama should have thought about that before he nominated someone straight from his administration.”
I’m sure he DID think about that and decided that made her perfect to appoint - he knew he could count on her to do his bidding.
Actually, I’ve heard and read that if she’d do the right thing, she’d need to recuse herself from at least 25% of the cases they’d be likely to hear.
But that’s only IF she’d do the right thing. We know she won’t - she’s on BHO’s team, after all.
Oklahoma hasn’t been sued yet?
Justice Dept. Sues Arizona Sheriff in Civil Rights Probe
The U.S. Justice Department sued Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday, saying the Arizona lawman refused for more than a year to turn over records in an investigation into allegations his department discriminates against Hispanics.
The lawsuit calls Arpaio and his office’s defiance “unprecedented,” and said the federal government has been trying since March 2009 to get officials to comply with its probe of alleged discrimination, unconstitutional searches and seizures, and having English-only policies in his jails that discriminate against people with limited English skills.
Arpaio had been given until Aug. 17 to hand over documents it first asked for 15 months ago.
BYRON YORK IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:
Perez is pursuing his goals with a lot of muscle, powered by a major appropriations increase in President Obamas 2010 budget. “I am going to be calling each and every one of you to recruit you, because weve got 102 new positions in our budget,” Perez told the liberal lawyers last year. “One hundred and two people, when added to a base of 715 people. thats a real opportunity to make a difference.”
YORK: Perez is playing a leading role in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is promising a huge increase in prosecution of alleged hate crimes. He vows to use “disparate impact theory” to pursue discrimination cases where there is no intent to discriminate but a difference in results, such as in test scores or mortgage lending, that Perez wants to change. He is even considering a crackdown on Web sites on the theory that the Internet is a public accommodation as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
To do all this, Perez has come up with some novel ideas. For example, in a recent lending discrimination case, he forced the defendant who settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing to pay not only the alleged victims but to funnel $1 million to unrelated “qualified organizations” to conduct social programs.
The UN, in concert with Obama, declared Arizona was committing human rights violations...as a state of the USA. Now they target Arpaio.
The most un-American administration ever.
She did recuse from about 20% of the cases in her first term, since she had represented the Government before the Supreme Court in the certiorari filings in those cases. There will be a lot fewer recusals as time goes on.
Theoretically possible, but very rare.
On what grounds? Sotomayor was born in New York, and is of Puerto Rican descent. New Yorkers and Puerto Ricans are citizens.
She’s a racist.