Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
Thanks. On that basis, it would seem the decision is a valid one from a purely constitutional perspective.
I hope they are as rigorous on the subject of individual mandates and Obamacare.
Your comments, please.
There is something silly about saying that because Congress controls immigration that states can’t respond to lawbreaking, illegal invasion.
“So we now have the SCOTUS ignoring the laws of the land that they don’t like?”
I think they just want to keep their jobs. I’m sure hussein will be removing them by mandate soon unless they follow his program.
Exactly. Now the issue remains how does a state force the federal government to uphold the current law?
i do believe it will be kicked bach to the lower court so they can finisht that part that still stand off.
Unanimous decision.
Wrong reactions by most FReepers, according to Sekulow on with Beck.
See my post #57.
I don’t like the ruling either but too many people here want it both ways. Either the SC follows the Constitution (immigration is part of the Federal domain) or not. All this knee-jerk reaction is worthy of the DU.
Start sending reps that will enforce immigration law or ammend the Constitution.
“Further proof just how important unfettered illegal immigration is to the ruling class.”
That ‘bout says it all.
Then ICE simply lets them go, "Catch and Release".
Hold on, the stop provision survived. The headlines are misleading
How long before someone sues to stop "sanctuary city" practices on the basis of this decision?
Keep their jobs..........Their jobs are for life. The very purpose of job for life....was they wouldn’t have to be owing to anyone.
I see a second “swinger” on the COurt.
We need a rock-solid conservative to replace Kennedy when he leaves.
Sadly no. Any hard evidence would sink "The One" politically, and he knows it. The second swearing in was done in private and no photos - very odd for a guy as narcissistic as 0bama. Granted, the first swearing in was botched somewhat, but to summon the Chief Justice for a second attempt makes you wonder.
Far too often, initial reactions in here are wrong. It’s getting to the point where a core group of FReepers have adopted the ‘I’m a victim’ default position to EVERYTHING.
“Yes, the SC upheld the key portion of the law.”
At any time the 9th circus can stop this section again and like a bad dinner this vomit will be back at the USSC after the election of course.
If our laws are than damned convoluted that it takes this much crap for a state to do what the Federal government outlaws but does not enforce then we need a whole new set of laws. Only keep the fricken lawyers out of it.
EXACTLY...NO STATES RIGHTS.
Here’s a question. What if the state police pull over a car load of illegal immigrants for speeding? Their status is checked and they are detained for ICE. Then ICE sets them free. How is that a victory?
I agree.
What SCOTUS did not do is to force the federal government to enforce its own laws.
That’s where electing conservatives to Congress and voting out the crap like Boehner, McConnell, Hatch, etc. is so important.
On top of all of his faults, incompetence, treason, etc., Obama can, and should be, impeached for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In this case, immigration laws.
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.