Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
Fox News Channel (link added) ^ | 6/25/12 | Staff

Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351 next last
To: redgolum

Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay.


Yup.


151 posted on 06/25/2012 8:30:45 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds
C19fan: "Romney’s record in Mass was horrible for court appointments."

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!

152 posted on 06/25/2012 8:32:35 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


153 posted on 06/25/2012 8:32:54 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds; C19fan

C19fan, Forgot to ping you. You are correct.


154 posted on 06/25/2012 8:34:12 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

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.


155 posted on 06/25/2012 8:34:24 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: hitchwolf

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.


156 posted on 06/25/2012 8:35:09 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

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.


157 posted on 06/25/2012 8:35:23 AM PDT by 4Liberty (88% of Americans are NON-UNION. We value honest, peaceful Free trade-NOT protectionist CARTELS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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.


158 posted on 06/25/2012 8:36:15 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
Not only is this a disaster for immigration, this is a HUGE disaster as it pertains to precedent for future “states right’s rulings”

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???

159 posted on 06/25/2012 8:37:42 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

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.


160 posted on 06/25/2012 8:38:04 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Member of the BBB Club - Bye-Bye-Barry!!! President Barack "Down Low" Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; All

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.


161 posted on 06/25/2012 8:39:07 AM PDT by TitansAFC (Nice job, Rick Santorum. Mission Accomplished! Grrrrrrrrrr.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If the Constitution had a clause saying that Congress can pass immigration laws that the president can on personal whim enforce or not enforce, and that states are powerless to address

Separate issue.

Impeachment is the remedy when presidents deliberately violate the Constitution.

162 posted on 06/25/2012 8:39:07 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Roberts is political

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.

163 posted on 06/25/2012 8:40:05 AM PDT by JimWayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: chessplayer

I think this knocks the crap out of Joe Arpaio. Not sure.


164 posted on 06/25/2012 8:40:05 AM PDT by AGreatPer (Any Republican. Just NO Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
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.

Agree.

165 posted on 06/25/2012 8:41:27 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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.


166 posted on 06/25/2012 8:41:36 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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.


167 posted on 06/25/2012 8:43:02 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

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.


168 posted on 06/25/2012 8:43:40 AM PDT by newnhdad (Where will you be during the Election Riots of 2012/2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
ALL of the Justices upheld that the police have the right to check the immigration status of those they stop.

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.

169 posted on 06/25/2012 8:43:52 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

“Romney’s 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.


170 posted on 06/25/2012 8:44:34 AM PDT by Forty-Niner (The barely bare, berry bear formerly known as..........Ursus Arctos Horribilis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
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.

Yep. Enforcement of existing law is the main issue. That's what prompted Arizona to pass it at a state level to begin with.

171 posted on 06/25/2012 8:45:05 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Thanks svcw.


172 posted on 06/25/2012 8:45:35 AM PDT by no-to-illegals (Please God, Protect and Bless Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

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.


173 posted on 06/25/2012 8:49:30 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
>"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”

Drunky Gonzalez gets to stay in the neighborhood of those he ran over.

Booshes fault. (for ceding the office to a foreigner)

174 posted on 06/25/2012 8:51:57 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith
I'm hoping Roberts joined the majority to write the opinion and limit the damage.

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.

175 posted on 06/25/2012 8:56:06 AM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

“..there are other suits that will arise about it’s 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.”


176 posted on 06/25/2012 8:57:59 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Some Egyptian probably has the vid.

If he did it. There would be the place to look for it.

177 posted on 06/25/2012 9:01:13 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It is insanity, and it is extremely troubling that Judge Roberts sided with the majority.

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.

Source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia commented on President Obama’s 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 priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is 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 Congress’s failure to pass the Administra­tion’s 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.

Source

178 posted on 06/25/2012 9:05:53 AM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

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.


179 posted on 06/25/2012 9:10:38 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; All

I’m surprised you haven’t bashed Reagan for picking Kennedy..


180 posted on 06/25/2012 9:10:41 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Give the Government an inch and they will want more and more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

What was a unanimous decision?


181 posted on 06/25/2012 9:11:05 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administra­tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act

Which means the president is supposed to be enforcing the current law as written and not the imagined revisions he'd like to enforce.

182 posted on 06/25/2012 9:11:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: All
How was it decided that the Supreme Court should exist? These people are chosen by Presidents, who obviously have their own agendas. These judges serve for life with complete control - long after the Presidents leave office. They answer to no one.

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.

183 posted on 06/25/2012 9:12:03 AM PDT by LADY J (You never know how strong you are until being strong is the only choice you have. - Author Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
All you gloom and doomers who seem to believe this is a "win" for the Dems haven't seen the take from the number one lib booster, Politico.

**********************************************************

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s 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 government’s 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

184 posted on 06/25/2012 9:13:10 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

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.


185 posted on 06/25/2012 9:13:37 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
"All of their decisions were arrived at over a month ago.

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."

186 posted on 06/25/2012 9:17:12 AM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Not looking good for us.


187 posted on 06/25/2012 9:17:12 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

How can this be a unanimous decision if Scalia wrote a scathing dissent?

None of the reporting on this makes any sense whatsoever.


188 posted on 06/25/2012 9:18:39 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

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.


189 posted on 06/25/2012 9:19:17 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

They’re in denial. That’s better than being depressed as hell.


190 posted on 06/25/2012 9:19:25 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

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.


191 posted on 06/25/2012 9:20:26 AM PDT by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

But would people believe him?


192 posted on 06/25/2012 9:21:04 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Nobody died at Watergate. Who were Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata? (Post this on Facebook, everyone!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ChildOfThe60s

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.


193 posted on 06/25/2012 9:21:07 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

“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.


194 posted on 06/25/2012 9:21:16 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay. We are so screwed.

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.

195 posted on 06/25/2012 9:21:26 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Do you think corporations would stop taking taxes out of your paycheck?


196 posted on 06/25/2012 9:22:15 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

“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.


197 posted on 06/25/2012 9:22:46 AM PDT by Belle22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bridgemanusa
Brewer hailed the decision as a "victory for the rule of law" -- in reference to the one provision that was upheld. "After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution," Brewer said.
198 posted on 06/25/2012 9:23:41 AM PDT by Brown Deer (Pray for 0bama. Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newnhdad

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.


199 posted on 06/25/2012 9:24:15 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush; All
States can do it... That is in accordance to the 10th amendment..
200 posted on 06/25/2012 9:24:35 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Give the Government an inch and they will want more and more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 351 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson