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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last
To: pabianice

Since in Arizona Kennedy went with the libs, I believe it’s his way of maintaining his bonafides, softening somewhat the acrimony he’s going to receive when his is the deciding vote overturning the health insurance mandate.

Roberts? I’m dumbfounded.


51 posted on 06/25/2012 7:44:54 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: epluribus_2

>>The court did not mention what states should do when the fed government will not enforce laws that hurt individual states.

The core of SCOTUS’s ‘reasoning’ to strike sections 3, 5, and 6 of the AZ law seemed to be that the state law interfered with FedGov’s right to NOT enforce federal law.


52 posted on 06/25/2012 7:44:54 AM PDT by vikingd00d (chown -R us ./base)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

No


53 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:06 AM PDT by halo66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

“(the second time using a koran!)”

If true, that’s shocking, hence: do you know of any evidence that’s true?


54 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:26 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Here is the decision.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Mark Levin will dissect this decision tonight. Stay tuned.


55 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:36 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

More incentive to vote Obama OUT in order to get control of the border.


56 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:52 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (You're screwy! You're spaced! You lost the recall race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Jay Sekulow on Beck disagrees with your quick assessment, completely.

He said the guts of the AZ law was the provision that was upheld, that AZ police can ask immigration status and detain for ICE when carrying out other law enforcement duties.

He said it is HUGE.

He said the three provisions struck down were said to be pre-empted by federal law. In other words AZ can’t make it a state crime to illegally immigrate or be employed in the state because federal law already legislates in this area and trumps it.

THE RULING WAS UNANIMOUS.

LET ME REPEAT.

UNANIMOUS.

Why are people here attacking a couple of justices and attacking Bush over this?


57 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:56 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

If they use this same logic of Federal sphere of power superior to State Law in any and all all instances:

National Concealed Carry would be 9-0 affirmed
Right to Life would be 9-0 upheld
“Natural Born” would remove imposter from the White House

States could eliminate any and all personnel/budgetary consideratins for offices of Education, Labor, Environmental Protection, Transportation, Commerce and Drug Enforcement.

It’s just that that persnickety 10th Amendment is in the way . . .


58 posted on 06/25/2012 7:45:56 AM PDT by Macoozie (Go Sarah! Palin/Daniels 2012 - (Broker it! I can dream, can't I?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Its over the. States have no rights to enforce law. Supremes have finished off the USA


59 posted on 06/25/2012 7:46:04 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

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.

60 posted on 06/25/2012 7:46:32 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The root problem is not that SCOTUS shot down AZ S1170. The root problem that the executive branch is being allowed by both parties to choose which laws it will enforce, and which laws it will unilaterally decree in the form of Executive Orders. Note my tag line.


61 posted on 06/25/2012 7:46:37 AM PDT by Pecos (Constitution? Oh, you mean that thing we USED to have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Why should the police check their immigration status if you cannot arrest them, if they are here illegally?


62 posted on 06/25/2012 7:46:52 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Immigration is the responsibility of the Fed, the Fed isn’t doing their job. Seems the court does not think the State can step in just because the Fed is looking the other way. However, the part of the law that wasn’t struck down is extremely important. I wouldn’t call this a loss but not a win either.


63 posted on 06/25/2012 7:46:52 AM PDT by CityCenter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

Huh? Romney does not have that as his history, so why would he do that as president?


64 posted on 06/25/2012 7:47:34 AM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kidd

The US Constitution enables a state to mobilize its military to repel a critical, imminent threat.

That would be an interesting decision.

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. “

“Imminent” is in the eye of the beholder


65 posted on 06/25/2012 7:48:19 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 11 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

They are stupid.

See my post #57 for Sekulow on Beck’s program.


66 posted on 06/25/2012 7:48:24 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: FrdmLvr

“The issue Romney can win on is: “I will nominate only conservative justices”.”

I’m pretty sure that would be a first. Take a look at his record.


67 posted on 06/25/2012 7:48:35 AM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
Unanimous...Wow

HUGE loss for Obama.

68 posted on 06/25/2012 7:48:57 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Because, in all my years of listening to stupid news media people, I have NEVER heard more incompetent reporting than I’ve heard this morning on this issue. The so-called smartest people in the room, our beloved media, can’t even tell us what was thrown out and what was upheld in a coherent manner.


69 posted on 06/25/2012 7:49:16 AM PDT by perfect_rovian_storm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Even though I was chastised for calling these black robed morons, black robed morons, here is more proof just how moronic they are.

Section 6 of the AZ law was so damned similar to section 2 as to require a microscope or a lawyer to discern the difference yet the morons struck down 6 and tossed 2 back to the most unconstitutional court in the land the 9th circus.

So here is the situation we have and will of course take no action to resolve.

We have an out of control, overreaching, clearly unconstitutional Federal government, as designed by the founders, who do not do one of the very few jobs assigned to them and the black robed morons on the USSC are preventing a state, negatively impacted by this inaction, from protecting themselves from an invasion of criminal trespassers.

Hey great: Ruling elite pass laws they have no intention of enforcing. Ruling elite prevent a state from enforcing those laws. Now WE THE PEOPLE have to fund criminal trespasser’s education, medical costs, food stamps etc.

Just when are we going to grow a set and chop the federal government down to the size INTENDED and DESIGNED by the founders?


70 posted on 06/25/2012 7:49:23 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Roberts as with this case and marijuana favors Federal power over State Rights.


71 posted on 06/25/2012 7:49:59 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Protection of borders is a Federal issue which is why the Court said that federal statutes “preempted” the Arizona law. Federal law always supersedes state law (Article VI, Clause 2). The issue is that Obama (and Bush for that matter) did not enforce existing federal law covering the borders and Arizona sought to protect itself. If the federal laws already in place are enforced properly by the executive branch then Arizona likely never passes SB 1070.


72 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:20 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Honestly, this is a WIN for Arizona.

Fans of the Constitution should be pleased that the three provisions over-ruled were done so on the premise of pre-emption. There is already a federal law on the books that covers the three stricken provisions. The court merely upheld the law on this.

On the fourth issue, the Supremes said that Arizona is well within its rights to mandate LEOs ask for proper identifications and request immigration status and proof. THIS was the provision Obama wanted struck-down and he was DENIED!


73 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:20 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Not Romney - Not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

yes...ruling against states right and law and even us immigrations law means the end.


74 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:28 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

ObamaCare standing WOULD ensure an 80% white, blue collar, and over 50 turnout against Obama in November. That would be a good thing.


75 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:34 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: apillar

——So basically, all the states can do is bend over and hand out welfare checks while saying “Welcome Senior and Seniorita!”-——

Simple solution: stop paying for welfare.


76 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:33 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas (Viva Christo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
this gives the GOP more ammunition in the General Election to use against Obama for his failure to enforce existing Federal Immigration Law statutes

True, but this won't add much; after all Emperor Hussein I has already decreed that he isn't going to enforce the immigration laws he disagrees with.

77 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:33 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (An Appeal to Heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Wait, what has one case to do with the other? The AZ law was about the State usurping the Fed authority in this area. The Obamacare case is about the feds overreaching and i this way it can be said the AZ ruling is actually a POSITIVE sign (to over turn) for the ruling to come on Thursday.


78 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:57 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Main Street

“Like the fall of Rome, the will to defend our own boarders isn’t even there anymore.”

Great article here about our national suicide, and our leaders’ role in it.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3409


79 posted on 06/25/2012 7:51:21 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

In reading his thing, it appears that Kennedy et al are basing this ruling on the grounds of the “Supremacy Clause” in which Congress has the constitutional right to preempt state law. It misses the mark though in that the congressional preemption is NOT the issue, but the federal government’s deliberate refusal to enforce current law.


80 posted on 06/25/2012 7:51:45 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

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.


81 posted on 06/25/2012 7:51:45 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Your comments, please.

There is something silly about saying that because Congress controls immigration that states can’t respond to lawbreaking, illegal invasion.


82 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:03 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 1 | View Replies]

To: originalbuckeye

“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.


83 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:10 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

Exactly. Now the issue remains how does a state force the federal government to uphold the current law?


84 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:10 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

i do believe it will be kicked bach to the lower court so they can finisht that part that still stand off.


85 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:10 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; C19fan; redgolum; dalebert

Unanimous decision.

Wrong reactions by most FReepers, according to Sekulow on with Beck.

See my post #57.


86 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:19 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

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.


87 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:34 AM PDT by Azeem (There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56

“Further proof just how important unfettered illegal immigration is to the ruling class.”

That ‘bout says it all.


88 posted on 06/25/2012 7:52:41 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
He said the guts of the AZ law was the provision that was upheld, that AZ police can ask immigration status and detain for ICE

Then ICE simply lets them go, "Catch and Release".

89 posted on 06/25/2012 7:53:41 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; All

Hold on, the stop provision survived. The headlines are misleading


90 posted on 06/25/2012 7:54:08 AM PDT by Havisham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
He said the three provisions struck down were said to be pre-empted by federal law. In other words AZ can’t make it a state crime to illegally immigrate or be employed in the state because federal law already legislates in this area and trumps it.

How long before someone sues to stop "sanctuary city" practices on the basis of this decision?

91 posted on 06/25/2012 7:54:21 AM PDT by kevkrom (Those in a rush to trample the Constitution seem to forget that it is the source of their authority.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

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.


92 posted on 06/25/2012 7:55:29 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette
ty for your post
93 posted on 06/25/2012 7:56:02 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I see a second “swinger” on the COurt.

We need a rock-solid conservative to replace Kennedy when he leaves.


94 posted on 06/25/2012 7:56:11 AM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux
If true, that’s shocking, hence: do you know of any evidence that’s true?

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.

95 posted on 06/25/2012 7:56:19 AM PDT by The Sons of Liberty (An Appeal to Heaven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

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.


96 posted on 06/25/2012 7:57:01 AM PDT by tatown ( FUMD, FUAC, and FUGB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

“Yes, the SC upheld the key portion of the law.”


No it would seem even on section 2 the black robed morons did not even have a set. They tossed it back to 9th circus as they felt the 9th had not done their diligence prior to blocking section 2 and they are opening the door for the communists on the 9th circuit to continue their great record of overturned decisions.

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.


97 posted on 06/25/2012 7:57:01 AM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: apillar

EXACTLY...NO STATES RIGHTS.


98 posted on 06/25/2012 7:57:05 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

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?


99 posted on 06/25/2012 7:57:50 AM PDT by Terry Mross (To My Liberal Kinfolk: Don't call, email or write until you've gotten your brain fixed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

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.


100 posted on 06/25/2012 7:57:59 AM PDT by NoKoolAidforMe (I'm clinging to my God and my guns. You can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 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