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
And that is ALL that is ... spin. We need to stop going with headlines and read the decisions (said the lawyer). This is a HUGE HUGE HUGE loss for states rights and AZ.
We need to read these things and stay away from news entertainment.
If Kagan recused herself for this ruling, will she do the same for obammacare?
Fox blows, period.
Is there some attorney out there who can explain in plain English the reasons for this decision?
Roberts IS a conservative. If he voted against the opther provisions of the Arizona Law, there must have been a reason for it.
On the other hand, this gives the GOP more ammunition in the General Election to use against Obama for his failure to enforce existing Federal Immigration Law statutes. A failure which actually WAS intitiated under Bush II.
“Yes, the SC upheld the key portion of the law.”
Agreed. As much as I wanted them to uphold all provisions of the Arizona law, I don’t see it as a total loss. Not sure how this changes my opinion on the bigger case coming down no later than Thursday.
sent back to 9th District Court for review.
that’s like asking hyenas to do a better job picking over a carcass.
CNN and msnbc are giddy. That tells me the SC went with obama.
Yeah - this is just spin. I read the majority ruling. Basically - it argues that Congress created an “All encompassing system” for immigration, so any state laws, even “complimentary” ones are ruled out. As for section “2B,” the part concerning immigration checks while being stopped - it survived, but may be tested again in the courts after we’ve lived with it for a short time. So - all in all - Zero wins and the country looses... Obama playing the fiddle while the country burns comes to mind.
No, SCOTUS ordered Section 2 back to the 9th Circus for determination. Gee. I wonder how that house of clowns will decide??? What tension!
Obama LOST !!!!!!!
I believe the decision is correct.
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.
>>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.
“(the second time using a koran!)”
If true, that’s shocking, hence: do you know of any evidence that’s true?
Here is the decision.
Mark Levin will dissect this decision tonight. Stay tuned.
More incentive to vote Obama OUT in order to get control of the border.
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.
Why are people here attacking a couple of justices and attacking Bush over this?
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 . . .
Its over the. States have no rights to enforce law. Supremes have finished off the USA
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.
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.