Skip to comments.Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
Posted on 04/25/2012 9:57:32 AM PDT by DBeers
Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court's term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government's control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not," Roberts said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Nuanced = Selective Enforcement
“nuanced federal immigration policy”
“It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.
Lalalalala . . . I can’t hear you.
While questions are reasonably meaningless, it appears it may be a split decision and NOT a good split decision.
Looks like Congressional Sen. Schumer plans to defy the courts decision if they uphold Arizona’s law......
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who is a critic of the Arizona law, said Tuesday that.... if the court does uphold the states law, he will introduce legislation to overturn that decision and grant the federal government sole control on immigration matters....
Mr. Schumers legislation would also overturn a 2011 Supreme Court case that upheld a separate Arizona law that requires all businesses in the state to check employees legal status using E-Verify, the federal governments electronic verification system.
...INCLUDING the illegal alien Barry Obama.
I will look at any portion being upheld as a victory. I assume there is a severability clause and if the Justices strike down any portion that the remainder will remain.
Any remaining portion of the law; which I assume will include E-Verify as well as asking for proof of citizenship when interacting with local law enforcement WILL become a model for other States to adopt -a model that Holder can cram up his hoohaa!
Try spending an evening at the Windsor Casino and coming back over the Ambassador Bridge without your passport, and see how “nuanced” our immigration policy is....
Well at least with one judge sitting this one out we will not get the usual 5-4 politically biased decision but we may get a 4-4 crap sandwich which by default goes in favor of the Feds.
Arizona is not attempting to implement a stronger law that the feds so what is the problem? They are simply making sure that Federal law is obeyed even though the Feds deliberately fail miserably in one of their very FEW Constitutionally mandated tasks.
If Arizona cannot do this then, California must be banned from having stricter air pollution regulations for cars. What is the difference? After all, the more restrictive CA emissions regulations impacts the so grossly misused Commerce Clause by forcing auto manufactures to comply with different laws in California than the rest of the country.
Or how about states which have stricter gun laws than the Feds?
Seems the communist filth in Washington wants it both ways and regardless we get it in the end, literally and figuratively.
To summarize, the Feds will punish a state which does not make sure residents follow Federal laws/regulations and the Feds will punish states which do make sure residents follow Federal laws/regulations.
Therefore the actions of the Dallas city police and the Texas Rangers to track down and apprehend Lee Harvey Oswald were injurious to public order and comity.
He should therefore be released from local custody until such time as proper federal officials are on hand to conduct a proper search that considers all interests.
The federal government has limited resources and must counsel the application of those resources against the ability to receive calls for assistance.
He can introduce whatever he wants. Can he get co-sponsors and can it pass?
Can someone explain to me the difference between Kagan recusing herself in this case and not recusing herself in the Obamacare case? Thank you.
I really like Jan though I’m not from your state. She stands her ground so admirably.
This article posted on FR should help answer some questions:
I was thinking along the same lines. What about drug laws?