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.
Good points!
BINGO!
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 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.
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.
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.