Skip to comments.Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
click here to read article
Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay.
ReleaseTheHounds: As I understand it, in Mass a committee makes the nominations and he has to select from those nominated.
Libs controlled that committee, so Romney could only select from that list.
you can't nail him for that. "
Actually, RINO Romney is the issue .... again.
Mr. RomneyCARE controlled the matter .... and screwed Conservatives ... again.
The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday.
The cause of death: failed leadership.
The party is survived by a few leftover legislators
and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists
who have been ignored for years.
Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow.
In lieu of flowers, send messages to Republican voters
warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006
"In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican
Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more
Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor
as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans
have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely
ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time
during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign.
He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate
the day before the general election!
Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months
after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>
"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
P leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Obama did sign an EO giving defacto amnesty to illegal aliens since he and his cronies were not able to pass the DREAM Act.
What are the States (not just the border States) supposed to do when they are being invaded by illegals and the Feds won’t do anything about them by EO?
It is up to the States to pick up the slack when the Feds don’t do they don’t enforce the law.
C19fan, Forgot to ping you. You are correct.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a huge loss. The “unanimous” of which you speak was only about asking for papers in the abstract. And of course there is not a problem with that if there is reason to suspect. however, that part was remanded, there are other suits that will arise about it’s application. It may yet be struck down for other reasons.
But, hey, the talking heads can spin this any way they want so some of you can sleep at night. As they whittle away America one ruling at a time, all we do are read headlines and listen to pundits. Sad.
Not what happened.
A FReeper attacked Bush because Roberts ruled this way.
One teeny tiny little problemo...
The ruling was unanimous.
Clarence Thomas, Alito (Bush, too), Scalia, the whole lot of them ruled the same.
Therefore, attacking Bush because Roberts ruled the way all the others also ruled is...
What shall I call it?
I don’t use that kind of language.
Conclusion of 1070 SCOTUS ruling:
The Feds like a “Funded Mandate” (Law) if they support it.
If they don’t, they must remain Unfunded Mandates — even if a US State chooses to fund (enforce) the laws with its own state/local resources.
The great U.S. The ONLY country on the planet that will not protect it’s borders. The ONLY country on the planet that will not enforce it’s immigration laws. The Feds say states have no right to protect their borders or control illegal immigration, that it’s the job of the federal govt. to do. And the federal govt. says it won’t do it. Talk about screwed.
We got beat and beat bad. And as long as we salve our feelings with those news entertainment idiots, we will NEVER know what is really going on.
I've read every comment on this entire thread and have to agree with you. SCOTUS has taken away 3 provisions of the law and left only 1, and that 1 is still not even secure, but subject to further lower court review. The lower court will now furtively dismantle that 1 until there is nothing left of it.
This is a disaster for conservatives. What are all these other people applauding???
The correct path would have been to file a law suit in federal court against ICE and the Obama Administration for failing to enforce immigration laws with due diligence. I suspect that would have had more legs in the SCOTUS than this attempt to usurp federal powers.
I have said it before, I will say it again:
Our Supreme Court is only a CONSERVATIVE majority when it comes to CORPORATE/Financial issues (and to some degree now, guns).
On everything else, it is still a Liberal Majority. Immigration, Abortion, Euthansia, Affirmative Action, States’ Rights, Gay Agenda, et al - the Court is at least a one justice (usually two) majority vote for the LEFT.
The Mandate will not survive because The Chamber does not want it to. The Immigration laws will continue to be struck down because the Chamber wants them struck down. CFR will get struck down every time because the Chamber wants it struck down. Some of these decisions are just, some are heinous; but make no mistake about it: it has little or nothing to do with consistency and everything to do with influence.
The Chamber adores Romney and controls him. Don’t expect Roe overturned or immigration laws enforced if Romney nominates even as many as five SCOTUS Justices. We will get more of the status quo: increased Corporate Rights while smacking down every attempt to pass stricter immigration laws or to overturn Roe.
Even Bush tried to give us Gonzalez and Miers. Roberts helped strike down the immigration laws.
Impeachment is the remedy when presidents deliberately violate the Constitution.
All of them are political except for Clarence Thomas. Remember that Scalia expanded Marxism by interpreting the Commerce Clause as granting absolute power for the government to interfere in any activity.
I think this knocks the crap out of Joe Arpaio. Not sure.
This is baloney. The 10th amendment will continued to be shredded by the Feds and SCOTUS until states get the will to simply defy the FEDs and do it.
Short of sending in troops, the Feds can’t do a heck of lot. It is way past time for the Imperial Federal Government to be seriously challenged. And not in court, but on the playing field.
We (the states) will *never* win back our rights via the Federal courts. They must be seized by willful action. Do it and defy DC to stop them.
Where are the dynamic men of our history, willing to act on principle? The states protest, go to court, get rebuffed and then crawl back with tail between legs. Pathetic.
Short of a war against a corrupt Federal government the only option is to stop funding a corrupt Federal government. Period.
It works, because it is non-violent, and the Feds would have to make the first move.
Arresting otherwise law abbiding tax paying citizens enmasse
Also, the system would overwhelm itself, not to mention unable to fund itself, and I believe they would have to back down.
Imagine if the Feds got violent against its own, otherwise law abiding, citizens.
Which would quite probably provoke a war the corrupt Feds do not want.
Just a thought.
It looks pretty good to me but it leaves me with a bad taste. Instead of acting in a very deliberate fashion, stating in no uncertain terms, the court tends to split the baby, which is what I assume they’ll do with obamacare.
They didn't uphold it. They sent it back to the lower court for further review -- and you can use your imagination as to what that will mean when they're finished with it.
“Romneys record in Mass was horrible for court appointments.”
Much as a I dislike Romney, I don’t let it get in the way of reason. As Governor Rmoney’s judical appoints had to be taken from a list he was provided by a Democrat led committee and are not representative of who his personal choices would have been. That said, given his record on other issues, Romney’s judgement on judicial appointments is highly suspect. All I can say is that most certyaintly be better than Obama’s. By how much is a crap shoot.
Yep. Enforcement of existing law is the main issue. That's what prompted Arizona to pass it at a state level to begin with.
It was part of Scalia’s argument in dissent on the soveignty of states, so he wasn’t concerned with impeachment but in establishing that the power to decide who can or can’t enter your territory is the primary definition of sovereignty.
Drunky Gonzalez gets to stay in the neighborhood of those he ran over.
Booshes fault. (for ceding the office to a foreigner)
Hope will not change the fact that Kennedy is an attention whore and Roberts seems to be one in training. It is the only explanation for a vote declaring enforcing the law is against the law.
“..there are other suits that will arise about its application.”
Bingo. This isn’t going to go away any time soon.
You can bet the ACLU and La Raza types are preparing for a new round of suits over racial profiling & probable cause issues and what “reason to suspect” means.
You only have to look at the abhorrent Federal attitude towards airport security to see the future.
A Government that effectively institutionalizes feeling up 90 year old nuns and teenage girls to avoid hurting the ever so delicate sensibilities of a bunch of muzzies is going to come down like a ton of bricks on AZ if the race pimps can convince ‘em that “reason to suspect” mean’s “working class and brown.”
If he did it. There would be the place to look for it.
No mention here of Roberts even partially dissenting;
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law. Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law. Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia commented on President Obamas recent announcement suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children an issue not actually part of the Arizona case:
It has become clear that federal enforcement prioritiesin the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate scarce enforcement resourcesis not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30
The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is the right thing to do in light of Congresss failure to pass the Administrations proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
Next, Arizona should either sue the federal govt for failing to do their jobs, or
Continue business as usual, until the feds step in and start doing their jobs.””””
I vote for Arizona to sue the Feds.
Another reason that border states are in such financial trouble is that the Feds don’t stop the illegals from crossing our borders in the first place and then the Feds refuse to reimburse the states/counties/cities for the cost of catching 7 holding them for ICE.
Worse—Ice won’t even answer the phone & come get these creeps & deport them.
California is owed millions for the costs of rounding up the illegals there.
I’m surprised you haven’t bashed Reagan for picking Kennedy..
What was a unanimous decision?
Which means the president is supposed to be enforcing the current law as written and not the imagined revisions he'd like to enforce.
The Supreme Court makes decisions and the laws that they rule on affect all of our lives. That, in itself seems to be against our rights under the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizonas anti-illegal immigration law, clearing the way for similar legislation to take effect in other states and advancing a political narrative that could give President Barack Obama an added boost from Latino voters in November.
That provision, requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal governments powers to control immigration, the court said.
All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1yoyU2xlN
The central premise of the law remains in effect and that is to round up and (legally) dispose of illegal aliens
Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable
from the United States”””
It already is and has been for a number of years not legal AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL for any employer to hire a person who is not authorized to work in the USA.
IF a form I-9 is properly filled out and the applicant cannot prove that they are authorized to work in the USA, an employer cannot hire them.
IF they choose to hire them and get caught-—the fine can be as high as $5000 a day per employee.
Perhaps, but Scalia's dissent was obviously, at the least, revised in the last 10 days as he makes direct reference to Obama's announcement that he will not enforce the law on those brought here as children.
Quote of the day: Scalia - "...the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers."
Not looking good for us.
How can this be a unanimous decision if Scalia wrote a scathing dissent?
None of the reporting on this makes any sense whatsoever.
I;n no atty but I called one I know and from what he explained the sending of the provision back to the 9th district for reviews was a formality. The USSC has ruled it to be Constitutional and what was sent back was this decision simply so they, the 9th district could look it over.
The lower court can no longer rule against this unless some other outside entity brings another suit on grounds different then what was just ruled on by the USSC. That’s the way I understood what he explained to me.
They’re in denial. That’s better than being depressed as hell.
Roberts and Kennedy are there to provide a firewall for the moderate Republican insiders who want illegal immigration.
The GOP insiders are supported by the business interests who want cheap labor and dare I say it, also want Obamacare-Romneycare to bail them out of heathcare costs.
The Supremes may strike down a federal mandate, but allow states to mandate ala Romneycare which is what Willard mean when he speaks of “repealing” Obamacare.
But would people believe him?
I think the last state politician to stand up to the feds was George Wallace. Too bad he picked the wrong issue to support states’ rights.
“I’m hoping Roberts joined the majority to write the opinion and limit the damage.”
Nope, Kagan recused herself, so even with Kennedy switching sides it would have been a 4-4 decision.
I had believed that Roberts was a constructionist and that Kennedy was a libertarian/activist.
I see no way to take the words of the constitution and make it say that the president can whimsically enforce or not enforce the law of the land. Roberts' position then is based on something other than the constitution. I would guess that it's based on the desire of business to have cheap labor. If so, that is very bad for the ObamaCare decision because corporations are the ones who are really driving the train on the national health care issue. They want out from under the expense of providing it through their businesses. (Legitimate on the part of business, but the answer is to just stop covering it, not pass it off to a big government program. Let individuals buy their own.) If Kennedy is a libertarian, then I see no way that "liberty" is an issue in a cop turning in an illegal alien or a state wanting their police to do so. That means the "activist" portion won out, and Kennedy is also probably siding with international corporate desires to keep wages low via illegals competing for jobs. For all you democrat pro-unionists out there, this is a hugely ANTI-UNION decision, and especially in the building, trucking, and service sectors. But your bosses in the democrat party are going to want you sing praise to this catastrophe.
Do you think corporations would stop taking taxes out of your paycheck?
“Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay. We are so screwed.”
Interesting - this morning, my husband told me that Jake Tapper of ABC had reported that Obamacare would be UPHELD - 6-3 - with Kennedy and Roberts joining the majority (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg). The theory being that Kennedy didn’t want to be the 5th vote - as in Bush v. Gore - and Roberts didn’t want to divide the country. Sounds a bit like the failed philosophy that underlay the Missouri Compromise and the Dred Scott decision.
I bet this law had a severability clause.
Obamacare does not. Of course the USSC could decide this is like social security and damn everyone to slavery.