Looks like Roberts enjoys Georgetown cocktail parties more than he values the law. How in the world could he side with the open borders crowd?
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?
When I posted about the unanimous ruling, I had just heard that from good sources. But in fact apparently the provision they upheld WAS unanimous but apparently not so, the other provisions. Which was not covered by the talk radio source I cited.
I still don’t know the exact breakdown, but have subsequently heard that ONLY that upheld provision was unanimous.
A split decision on a state’s right to legislate in this area is disappointing, but not surprising.
My guess is some of the justices that joined to strike down the provisions that made immigration crimes into state crimes whereas they have been federal crimes, were worried about opening a pandora’s box of challenges re: state laws attempting to mirror federal laws on the same issues.
Still don’t know how the votes exactly broke down, because haven’t yet heard a talk radio source say. Rush mentioned Kennedy and Roberts joining with libs, however, which makes me think the vote was them plus Sotomayor, Breyer, and RBG...Kagan having recused.
Is that correct? Was it 5-4 on the AZ mirror laws provisions being struck?
(Many of you have posted to me, which I haven’t had time to read yet, so if this was already revealed, thanks for the info.)
My apologies for misunderstanding the difference in unanimous on the upheld provision and not on the struck ones, but that part was not covered on Beck, by Sekulow.
Brewer and AZ AG say it’s an important win.
Rush seems to be saying “muddled”.
He is thrilled with the Montana decision and cites Pelosi going nuts...again.
Rush now referencing Scalia’s dissent on AZ’s struck mirror law provisions...
Says AZ is either a sovereign entity or not...”I dissent”.
Make no mistake, in a just world/system ALL of AZ would be upheld, but methinks some of them were worried about opening that pandora’s box...
And for ALL of you who attack Bush because of Roberts, I presume Alito dissented? Also a Bush appointee.
I presume ALL of you know Kennedy was appointed by Reagan?
I disagree with W when called for. I never did see reason behind gratuitous, senseless and savage attacks and this would be one.