Skip to comments.Even Liberal Justice Sotomayor Shredded The Govt's Arguments Against Arizona's Immigration Law
Posted on 04/25/2012 1:27:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Signs it's not going well for this government and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the Supreme Court: when a traditionally liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama has no idea of the argument they're trying to make.
Enter Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
"Putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said to Verrilli.
"Because I, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?"
Verrilli had a rough time today trying to sell the Supreme Court justices — even the liberal ones — against the Arizona immigration law.
For context, Verrilli opened with a three-pronged opening argument against a controversial provision in SB 1070 that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion. It went like this:
1. Two million Hispanics live in Arizona — 400,000 illegally. Almost immediately, Justice Antonin Scalia cut him off because it "sounds like racial profiling to me." Earlier, Verrilli assured Chief Justice John Roberts that he would not attempt to argue on racial profiling grounds.
2. He moved onto the accountability issues of state officials enforcing federal laws but not being held accountable. No justice seemed to buy that.
3. The new amount of reports from state officials would overburden federal resources.
But that argument drew the skeptical comments from Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Mucho thnx for the link.
Heh ... I think the "Wise Latina" is a flat-out communist ...
So there's lots of room for her to be "more conservative than [I] think".
The SCOTUS argument on ObamaCare demonstrated the feebleness of the federal government’s position. This argument on Arizona’s immigration statute, on the other hand, is more telling of the DOJ’s incompetence. Either way, let’s just hope that their failings prove decisive in both ultimate outcomes.
That was wise of her.
“Congress has started standing up to Obama.”
Like what...the debt ceiling, gutting the military, Israel, money to the Muslim Brotherhood, Fast & Furious, etc.?
One was concern that she was racist. The "wise latino" being superior to old white men comment added to this concern. As well as the ruling against the white firefighters who were denied promotions after blacks claimed the firefighting test was somehow racist because blacks didn't do as well on it. It's still hard to imagine a racist firefighting test. There was concern that she was heavily involved in "identity politics".
The second concern, apparently was that both sides felt her opinions sometimes missed the forest for the trees. Missed the constitutional issues involved and that she was an intellectual lightweight.
The second may play to conservative's favor, in that the Supreme court is a committee and she will be exposed to the legal reasoning from the others. Thus, if she's a lightweight she may be easily swayed by sound legal reasoning.
Sotomayer appears more sane and conservative than Mitt’s judicial appointments in Mass... that really says something.
It's not perfect. But it's not like the house is going to vote to impeach Obama, when the Democrat Senate isn't going to support the impeachment.
As opposed to the liberal judges that Gov. Romney appointed? Might as well be Obama. What's the difference?
Besides read the Sotomeyor threads today. She's likely to go against Obama on both Obamacare and Immigration.
See post 28 too. I’m not the only one thinking Obama’s appointees aren’t as bad as Romney’s. Both candidates have nearly the same agenda.
“This is one of the reasons that Id just as soon see Obama reelected as Romney.
The court is standing up to Obama. Congress has started standing up to Obama.
Romney will have a free pass from Democrats, RINOS and Establishment Republicans to implement the same agenda as Obama. Obama wont.”
Except when he (Obama) appoints up to two more justices in his second term. Then this whole charade will be a moot point.
That reminds me of a conversation that I had with a co-worker several years ago. He said that the reason for that is because the Republicans are convinced that the country is conservative in fiscal and economic matters only. He said tht whatever is more popular tends to be more important and in that respect; when it comes to social and cultural matters, the country is and always has been liberal.
Thank you very much.
Do you think tomorrow the msm’ers will be calling her a white hispanic?
ROFL! They would have a meltdown for the ages.
Bit of a stretch, that.
You missed one really big point, the elephant in the living room. We only have a 5 to 4 edge on the Court right now. The First and SEcond Amendments both hang by a thread. If only one of those five men dies, from whatever causes, the Illegal will be able to appoint his successor, with catastrophic results.
Romney will appoint justices just as liberal, possibly more so, but nobody will question it.