Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Kagan Recuses Herself From Case Involving Arizona Immigration Law
cnsnews.com ^ | 12-12-11 | MARK SHERMAN

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; immigration; kagan; kaganrecusal; scotus

1 posted on 12/12/2011 9:14:13 AM PST by Justaham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


2 posted on 12/12/2011 9:20:48 AM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
Having done this, it seems like it will be very difficult for her to NOT recuse herself on the case(s) on ObamaKare.
3 posted on 12/12/2011 9:22:02 AM PST by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


4 posted on 12/12/2011 9:22:23 AM PST by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


5 posted on 12/12/2011 9:22:52 AM PST by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

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.


6 posted on 12/12/2011 9:26:42 AM PST by jbwbubba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
"Having done this, it seems like it will be very difficult for her to NOT recuse herself on the case(s) on ObamaKare."

To the contrary, this is a strategic ploy to give her credibility in her decision to not recuse herself from the commie-care arguments.

7 posted on 12/12/2011 9:27:28 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

What sort of Moron nominates a justice that is constantly recusing herself all the time....

Oh that Idiot in Chief....


8 posted on 12/12/2011 9:28:01 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


9 posted on 12/12/2011 9:32:42 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba; Joe 6-pack

Good points!


10 posted on 12/12/2011 9:38:48 AM PST by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

BINGO!


11 posted on 12/12/2011 9:44:30 AM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


12 posted on 12/12/2011 9:52:04 AM PST by Migraine (Diversity is great; until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba; All

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...


13 posted on 12/12/2011 10:06:42 AM PST by mdmathis6 (Christ came not to make mankind into God but to put God into men!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

What about “La Raza” er, The Race bitch—Sodamayor?


14 posted on 12/12/2011 10:07:49 AM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Read "The Grey Book" for an alternative to corruption in DC))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


15 posted on 12/12/2011 10:09:35 AM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

I can just hear obama now...”What is she supposed to do recuse herself from everything?”


16 posted on 12/12/2011 10:12:06 AM PST by RetSignman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba

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.

True and true. My guess she knows what the vote will be so she can skip this one and vote on 0bamacare.


17 posted on 12/12/2011 10:29:33 AM PST by fungoking (Tis a pleasure to live in the Ozarks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.


18 posted on 12/12/2011 10:32:01 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
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.

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).

19 posted on 12/12/2011 10:50:14 AM PST by kennedy (No relation to those other Kennedys.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

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.


20 posted on 12/12/2011 10:50:43 AM PST by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

Um... this case is on immigration law, not ObamaCare.


21 posted on 12/12/2011 11:10:09 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RetSignman
I can just hear obama now...”What is she supposed to do recuse herself from everything?”

If she has to. I guess Obama should have thought about that before he nominated someone straight from his administration.

22 posted on 12/12/2011 11:18:33 AM PST by GATOR NAVY ("The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen." -Dennis Prager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jbwbubba
Even if Kennedy sides with AZ its a minor matter compared to Obama-care.

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.

23 posted on 12/12/2011 11:34:15 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Immigration can be enforced by states. This is why we had the North fighting the South.


24 posted on 12/12/2011 1:26:33 PM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...
Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

25 posted on 12/12/2011 1:31:13 PM PST by HiJinx (I can see Mexico from my back porch...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I heard that a tie will revert the decision to the last lower court. IIRC, the last lower court, before the SCOTUS announced, sided with Obama. I would like to hear the SCOTUS announce that the States are allowed to enforce laws that the Feds won't bother to enforce. Doesn't the Constitution say that any power not specifically charged to the Feds becomes a State issue? Well, this Admin doesn't enforce the laws it doesn't like but they are still the Laws of the Land! SOMEONE ought to enforce them!
26 posted on 12/12/2011 3:27:03 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
Funny how the article implies that the SCOTUS is magnanimously agreeing to hear the case, as if a State of the United States should crawl on its knees to hear the Great Ones rule on their pitiful petitions.

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.

27 posted on 12/12/2011 3:28:54 PM PST by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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!


28 posted on 12/12/2011 3:32:04 PM PST by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

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.


29 posted on 12/12/2011 4:25:50 PM PST by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman! 10 percent is enough for God; 9 percent is enough for government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Having done this, it seems like it will be very difficult for her to NOT recuse herself on the case(s) on ObamaKare.

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.

30 posted on 12/12/2011 4:53:01 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Thank you.

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

31 posted on 12/12/2011 6:06:19 PM PST by Michael.SF. (When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

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!


32 posted on 12/12/2011 6:11:51 PM PST by Empireoftheatom48 (5-4-3-...!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Will88

“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 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?


33 posted on 12/12/2011 9:39:48 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!! c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wiggen

“Screw you Juan McCain.”

Yes - Juan certainly pandered to them enough, and he still managed to lose the election for us, didn’t he?


34 posted on 12/12/2011 9:47:00 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!! c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Now if she would only do this for her work on [BO]-Care!


35 posted on 12/12/2011 9:56:50 PM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
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.

Yes, you nailed it.
It's like when the ACLU defends Illinois Nazis in order to fake impartiality.

36 posted on 12/12/2011 10:01:56 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

“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.


37 posted on 12/12/2011 10:25:25 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!! c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GATOR NAVY

“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.


38 posted on 12/12/2011 11:13:35 PM PST by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Oklahoma hasn’t been sued yet?


39 posted on 12/12/2011 11:21:03 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

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.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/02/justice-dept-sues-arizona-sheriff-civil-rights-probe/


BYRON YORK IN THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

Perez is pursuing his goals with a lot of muscle, powered by a major appropriations increase in President Obama’s 2010 budget. “I am going to be calling each and every one of you to recruit you, because we’ve 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. … that’s 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.

http://tinyurl.com/2d3qdm7

The UN, in concert with Obama, declared Arizona was committing human rights violations...as a state of the USA. Now they target Arpaio.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71922

The most un-American administration ever.


40 posted on 12/13/2011 5:14:28 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB (Congress: Looting the future to bribe the present.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: llandres
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.

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.

41 posted on 12/13/2011 10:58:51 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
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

Theoretically possible, but very rare.

42 posted on 12/13/2011 11:01:38 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free
The pig sotomayer needs to recuse her racist butt from this case as well.

On what grounds? Sotomayor was born in New York, and is of Puerto Rican descent. New Yorkers and Puerto Ricans are citizens.

43 posted on 12/13/2011 3:14:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

She’s a racist.


44 posted on 12/14/2011 4:20:48 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson