Supreme Court is Set to Rule on Arizona's Immigration Law

Tea Party Tribune ^ | 2012-06-14 17:40:19 | Scott Rohter

[tselatysr]

 

The Supreme Court is Set to Rule on Arizona's Tough New Illegal Immigration Law, SB 1070

By Scott Rohter, June 2012

Based on the oral arguments, and the type of questions that were raised by the Supreme Court Justices, especially from the Court's first and only Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor who is also the newest member of the Court, the United States Supreme Court seems un-likely to strike down Arizona's tough new illegal immigration law, SB 1070. "Why don't you try to come up with something else?" is just one example of Justice Sotomayor's questions that she addressed to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who seemed like he was having a very hard time defending the Obama Administration's position.

The Federal Government wants the Supreme Court to strike down all or part of the tough Arizona law, especially the part that requires Arizona law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they detain, if they have reason to believe that the person they are detaining is here illegally. As far as the other issues that are dealt with by the new Arizona law, such as making it a separate crime for illegal aliens to work while they are in the country, or failing to register with the proper federal authorities, it is harder to tell just how the Supreme Court will come down. If the entire law is upheld, or if any part of it is upheld, pro illegal immigration groups seem certain to appeal the decision until all their legal remedies are utterly exhausted, including the flimsy argument that the Arizona law discriminates based upon race. That argument probably won't go over very well with Justice Sotomayor either.

Chief Justice John Roberts framed the Constitutional debate this way. He said that the government's legal challenge to SB 1070 is an argument over the allocation of State and Federal powers. In other words it is a lot of legal wrangling about a dispute over jurisdiction. To put it simply, it is a turf war. If the Arizona law is substantially upheld, it will be viewed by most authorities as a serious setback for the Obama administration, and for his chances of winning re-election in November. Along with the near certain defeat of his signature piece of legislation, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, this could signal his much anticipated political demise.

Attorney Paul Clement, representing Arizona in this case, argued that Arizona was merely using existing Federal law to compliment Arizona laws. In other words, Arizona merely adopted existing Federal standards. On the other hand, Donald Verrilli arguing for the Obama Administration said that the new Arizona law was essentially in conflict with existing Federal standards. Well, if that is indeed the case, then it is only because the Feds are not enforcing their own standards. They are not complying with their own Laws. Under our Constitution the job of the executive branch of government is to enforce the Law, regardless!

To read the rest of this article, view photographs or see any related articles on this subject please visit my website

http://lessgovisthebestgov.com/SB1070-Arizona-immigration-law-Supreme-Court-set-to-rule.html

 

Article shared using the Free Republish tool on Tea Party Tribune.

[Steely Tom]

I’m guessing the judge will rule - in effect - that Presidents only have to enforce laws they personally agree with, if they’re Democrats, anyway.

That this directly contradicts the oath of office they take before the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, will be ignored by the court.

I hope I’m wrong. In any event, the case will be appealed.

[jazusamo]

Hopefully SB1070 will stand but Rohter needs to do some homework, Kagan is the newest justice by a year.

[rottndog]

If SCOTUS upholds the law, there are no more appeals.

[Cobra64]

"Tough New Illegal Immigration Law"

Tough?

New?

This is coming from the Tea Party??!!

It seems to me that AZ just wants to enforce existing FEDERAL laws that the Feds fail to do.

What am I missing here?

[Steely Tom]

Oh, sorry, silly me. I didn’t realize it was already before the Supreme Court.

I doubt that Justice Sotomayor will care that by ruling against Arizona she will be promulgating a new theory of government for America, and making a joke out of every oath of every witness who swears to give truthful testimony before any court in this land.

The new “theory of government” will be this: that Democrat Presidents are - in effect - kings. Sovereigns.

[Delta 21]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Steely Tom]

What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. You're just not part of the population for whom the MSM writes their stories, at whom they direct their propaganda.

That population is made up mostly of the persons who represent the left half of the IQ distribution, and high-functioning mentally ill people, often referred to as "liberals."

[Delta 21]

If the Feds refuse to enforce their own laws. The responsibility falls to he state.

Its not the states responsibility to make big brother do what he is supposed to do. But when big brother doesnt he cant tell little brother that he cant do anything about it (no matter how bad it makes big brother look.)

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Based on the oral arguments, and the type of questions that were raised by the Supreme Court Justices, especially from the Court's first and only Hispanic Justice, Sonia Sotomayor who is also the newest member of the Court, the United States Supreme Court seems un-likely to strike down Arizona's tough new illegal immigration law, SB 1070. “Why don't you try to come up with something else?” is just one example of Justice Sotomayor’s questions that she addressed to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who seemed like he was having a very hard time defending the Obama Administration's position.”

RINO Sen Graham-nesty voted for the wise latino's SCOTUS confirmation. He is the same sleezy phony who claimed he was for changing the US constitution to stop birth-right citizenship just to kill the idea. He is a termite eating from within.

[Cheerio]

If SCOTUS upholds the law, there are no more appeals.

One would think - but sadly this will not be the end of attacks on the state of AZ by Zero and his witHolder.

Opponents plan new fights if SB 1070 upheld, Jun. 9, 2012 ASS Press
....snip...." For example, the high court isn't considering the possibility that racial profiling may arise from the law -- because the Obama administration's lawsuit didn't challenge it on those grounds. The administration focused instead on whether federal law supersedes the state law, an issue known as "pre-emption."

[Fully Awake DAV]

I have bee researching the number of times the U.S. DOJ has sued an individual state prior to the Obama Admin. If the citizens of a state vote to enact a law and the DOJ sues the state, in essence the DOJ is suing the individual citizens who voted in favor of the law.
My state requires a valid ID to vote, but we have not been sued.
Question remains, how many lawsuits has the Obama admin filed against states?

[Cheerio]

My state requires a valid ID to vote, but we have not been sued.

My guess is that if one gathers the data you may find that the Black jesus and his witHolder only sue states that do not vote overwhelmingly for RATs. Do you live in a BLUE state?

[Cheerio]

This is the way I see this entire charade - The Zero admin wants to be the sole arbiter of which Fed laws will be enforced and which ones will be ignored. See this, the State of AZ took the Fed law and copied it into a State law - thereby allowing the AZ law enforcement agencies to enforce the very law that Zero and his witHolder refuse to enforce. IF SCOTUS RULES AGAINST AZ HOW DO THEY RECONCILE THE FEDERAL LAW? Wouldn't the Fed law also be ruled unconstitutional?

[Red Steel]

What am I missing here?

Not a dang thang.

[Delta 21]

Im glad someone is paying attention.

[SeaHawkFan]

Kagan recused herself for this case.

[aquila48]

Can the president refuse to enforce any law?

http://thebroadside.freedomblogging.com/2011/02/25/impeach-obama-disbar-holder/

[okie01]

My state requires a valid ID to vote, but we have not been sued.

Then, your state is not among the states, counties and townships detailed in Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The states and entities below must pre-clear any change in voting procedures with the Department of Justice. Thus, Eric Holder can arbitrarily strike down Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Florida but not in, say, Indiana.

***********************************************
Jurisdictions requiring preclearance:

States and counties requiring preclearance under Section 5 of the VRA as of January, 2008. Several small jurisdictions have since bailed out,[21] but the majority of the map remains accurate

The jurisdictions listed below must be precleared (see 28 C.F.R. part 51 appendix):[22]

States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Georgia, except for the city of Sandy Springs
Louisiana
Mississippi
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia, except for fourteen counties (Amherst, Augusta, Botetourt, Essex, Frederick, Greene, Middlesex, Page, Pulaski, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington and Warren) and four independent cities (Fairfax, Harrisonburg, Salem, and Winchester)

Counties
California: Kings, Merced, Monterey, Yuba
Florida: Collier, Hardee, Hendry, Hillsborough, Monroe
New York: Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan)
North Carolina: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen, Camden, Caswell, Chowan, Cleveland (except for the city of Kings Mountain), Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Gaston, Gates, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford, Hoke, Jackson, Lee, Lenoir, Martin, Nash, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Person, Pitt, Robeson, Rockingham, Scotland, Union, Vance, Washington, Wayne, Wilson
South Dakota: Shannon, Todd

Townships Michigan: Clyde Township (Allegan County), Buena Vista
New Hampshire: Rindge, Millsfield, Pinkham's Grant, Stewartstown, Stratford, Benton, Antrim, Boscawen, Newington, Unity

[Fully Awake DAV]

My guess is that if one gathers the data you may find that the Black jesus and his witHolder only sue states that do not vote overwhelmingly for RATs. Do you live in a BLUE state?

No, but I live in a sparsely populated western state not particularly supportive of Rats.

Ha ha ...my question still stands..so far I’m batting or betting that this admin holds the record for lawsuits against states!.