We are so screwed.
If we allow ourselves to be.
Why? The two issues are not even closely connected
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!
yes...ruling against states right and law and even us immigrations law means the end.
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.
Makes me think this is the umpire's "makeup call" (albeit, announced first) for killing Mengelecare.
Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay.
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.
“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.
Don’t think you can drawn any conclusions about the health care case.
If you followed the argument, this wasn’t a huge surprise. Even in the argument Roberts indicated he had problems with AZ’s law and telegraphed the decision today.
Here’s a relevant part of him talking with AZ’s lawyer:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, maybe it’s a good time to talk about some of the other sections, in particular Section 5(C).
Now, that does seem to expand beyond the Federal government’s determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship.
You talk about supply and demand. The Federal government, of course, prohibits the employment, but it also imposes sanctions with respect to application for work. And the state of Arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions.
So, you see him talking about how one of the provisions “expand beyond” and impose “significantly greater” sanctions. You can tell from that that he was skeptical about AZ’s argument on Sec 5. In other parts he says similar things about Sec 3. If you read the argument he’s constantly distinguishing between Sec 2 and the other provisions.
Basically reading the argument his vote wasn’t a big surprise.
OTOH, if you read the health care argument he was very skeptical of the mandate and asked many pointed questions of the govt.
On the severability issue, it’s a bit more muddled.
but I’d be surprised if Roberts voted to uphold the mandate.
Looks like you were right.