FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
Here is the decision.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
Mark Levin will dissect this decision tonight. Stay tuned.
More incentive to vote Obama OUT in order to get control of the border.
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
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.
Why should the police check their immigration status if you cannot arrest them, if they are here illegally?
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?
Your comments, please.
There is something silly about saying that because Congress controls immigration that states can’t respond to lawbreaking, illegal invasion.
Hold on, the stop provision survived. The headlines are misleading
The States need to attack illegal immigration in areas where they have primacy. If, for example, a State refused to issue birth certs for children born to illegals, that is solely within its purview. If the feds disagree, they can issue their own certs.
If a State were to require EVERY citizen to get a work permit (which could be very pro forma, issued with drivers licences for example), and require everyone to provide a permit to work, that is not stepping on fed immigration law.
States are going to have to be more creatively aggressive about enforcing their end of federalism. To me, that’s the upshot of today’s ruling (and the pattern that has led to it).
Arizona tried to mirror the Feds law on immigration.
now Arizona should go back and sue the Feds to uphold federal law.
Perhaps we can use this to our benefit. Since the court has now held that not only do the the states not have the “obligation” to enforce Federal law, it appears that they now do not even have the “right” to enforce federal law. Therefore, as Gov. of Arizona, I would say to the Feds, “we no longer will provide any assistance in enforcing Federal law as it relates to collection of taxes, enforcing any Obamacare provisions, etc.”. Essentially, for all Federal laws, “you’re not getting our help - good luck with that”.
How could a court come back and now say, “you’re not allowed to enforce THIS federal law, but you MUST enforce others...”
It’s my understanding that the federal government is expected to assist when a state needs help repelling an invasion.
However, the initial defense lies with the state itself. A state may not “engage in War unless actually invaded” but I think Arizona could make a pretty strong case that some of these fence-jumpers are FAR more dangerous than humble lettuce-pickers in search of employment.
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” gives us a hint where Arizona could get enough troops to close the border and stop the invasion.
As to the states 'losing' their rights, it is far from that. Illegals can be detained for ICE. It didn't say how long, or where, and AZ has a LOT of desert space. Once handed over to ICE, it's a FED issue.
When the illegals realize there is no time-limit on deportation, they will leave or go someplace 'safer'.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I know some of my Conservative brethren are looking for a silver lining here. The “papers please” provision being kinda sorta upheld means nothing. The substantive ruling is that Fed rights trump state’s rights. 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.
It appears the only reason the other provisions were stuck down is because they encroached on existing Federal Law, and not because they're unconstitutional on their face.
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.
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.