Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 06/25/12 | Jess Bravin

Posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:07 AM PDT by TonyInOhio

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; fastandfurious; immigration; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

1 posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:12 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

I understood they sent that provision back to the lower court for reconsideration.


2 posted on 06/25/2012 7:53:58 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: TonyInOhio
Once again the liberal jurist always vote the liberal agenda first while conservative jurist do not.
3 posted on 06/25/2012 7:54:11 AM PDT by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

bkmark


4 posted on 06/25/2012 7:54:17 AM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

imho this is wishful conservative thinking. I keep hearing that they are allowing the one provision upheld to go back so they can see how it works in practice, or upon further lower court review. It will be challenged immediately.

They strongly upheld the principle that the federal government gets to set immigration policy, and this was in spite of the oral arguments which sounded hostile to the government.


5 posted on 06/25/2012 7:55:14 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

Politico headline

High court strikes down much of Arizona immigration law

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1yojRdj2F


6 posted on 06/25/2012 7:56:52 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

According to one of the Lawyers from the ACLJ, the key provision was upheld and the three others already had federal laws upholding them.


7 posted on 06/25/2012 7:59:20 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

This is SPIN. The “upheld” is even going back for review. This is a major major loss for AZ and state’s rights. Ignore the spin.


8 posted on 06/25/2012 8:00:27 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

Poor logic again by the Supremes.

The Constitution perscribes federal control over NATIRALIZATION. Period.

They used this to say that it also deals with non-naturalization issues like employment, which are NOT naturalization issues.

Like the Commerce clause, they stretched the Constitution to cover areas it did not apply to.

Under their weird reasoning, it is now legal to be an illegal alien. It is also now legal to take illegal employment.

It’s 1984 again.


9 posted on 06/25/2012 8:01:59 AM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

“They strongly upheld the principle that the federal government gets to set immigration policy, and this was in spite of the oral arguments which sounded hostile to the government.”

The two are not mutually exclusive. Immigration policy (and border control) IS a constitutionally mandated FEDERAL concern.

We can’t have each border state creating and enforcing it’s own interpretation of immigration and border control law EVEN IF, as now, the current resident refuses to enforce FEDERAL law.

The “hostile” part of the SCOTUS arguments involved this second fact, not the first.

We here are the first to decry judicial activism as opposed to strict constructionism. In this case, the majority voted in a strict constructionist manner.

We should at least applaud that fact while voting ABO in Novemeber in the hopes of getting a resident who will actually enforce FEDERAL laws.


10 posted on 06/25/2012 8:01:59 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Spin.

Look here

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-portion-of-arizona-immigration-law/

The left is already screaming “racist”, so you know it’s bad for them.


11 posted on 06/25/2012 8:02:45 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Exactly. Too many of us here are “headline readers”. Read the substance. We got slaughtered in SCOTUS on this today. This is a BAD BAD ruling for conservatives (said the lawyer).


12 posted on 06/25/2012 8:03:01 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Williams

I think here the Court fails the US again. They support invasion and overthrow. More and more reason to hold lawyers and judges and police in contempt.


13 posted on 06/25/2012 8:06:59 AM PDT by Rapscallion (Defy by silence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ontap
Once again the liberal jurist always vote the liberal agenda first while conservative jurist do not.

It seems that conservatives are always trying to be evenhanded while liberals never give an inch. That is why compromise always sets up a half life scenario where the libs get half a loaf and next time they get half of our half and so on.

14 posted on 06/25/2012 8:06:59 AM PDT by oldbrowser (Blue state sickness must not be rewarded)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000

“Strict Constitutionist manner” would mean that the federal government has control over Naturalization issues, since that is the only provision in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people.

Arizona was not trying to make illegals citizens. It was actually trying to assist federal laws already on the books.


15 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:23 AM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

>>Too many of us here are “headline readers”.<<

I’m not a headline reader.
The biggest problem I see from this is that AZ calls ICE and they do nothing.

Until Obama is out.


16 posted on 06/25/2012 8:07:37 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
From NBC (headline): High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

From WSJ (headline): Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law

Different perspectives

17 posted on 06/25/2012 8:08:09 AM PDT by Bushbacker1 (I miss President Bush! 2012 - The End Of An Error! (Oathkeeper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
So Juan commits a crime, he is arrested and Arizona can now ask him for his papers. Juan doesn't have any so Arizona call the INS. INS says we have a two year moratorium on deportations. Yep. totally slaughtered.
18 posted on 06/25/2012 8:09:02 AM PDT by dblshot (Insanity: electing the same people over and over and expecting different results.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

I get it. They are giving the power back to the Feds. This Admin has decreed they won’t enforce the laws at all, but another Admin can enforce the laws as written. We better get a new Admin who wants this country to succeed and thrive. Please God.


19 posted on 06/25/2012 8:09:18 AM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker1

Jay Sekulow said it’s good news.
Personally, I’m waiting for Mark Levin to weigh in. Hopefully he will call into Rush.


20 posted on 06/25/2012 8:10:52 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.


21 posted on 06/25/2012 8:11:43 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

22 posted on 06/25/2012 8:13:06 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio
I'm waitin for RUSH'S take on it...

or EVEN BETTER ANN COULTER'S truth....

Stand by America...
23 posted on 06/25/2012 8:17:59 AM PDT by jimsin (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

The Maj Decision is fairly easy to read, any where the AZ law touches a section of fed law the fed law shall have precedence this is fairly strict const.

Since Fed law stated that contact with ICE would be 24/7 and it was to be used by local LEO’s etc.. then the provision to contact and ascertain the legal status of persons arrested and held was upheld.

now when AZ has 10,000 or so contacts and EVERY TIME ICE does nothing... then it can be used as a political issue.


24 posted on 06/25/2012 8:18:03 AM PDT by Bidimus1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dblshot
So Juan commits a crime, he is arrested and Arizona can now ask him for his papers. Juan doesn't have any so Arizona call the INS. INS says we have a two year moratorium on deportations.

That 'bout sums it up.

25 posted on 06/25/2012 8:19:27 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

I’m sorry to see Roberts side with the liberal majorit.

I love Scalia’s comment that if Arizon is not allowed to enforce its territory, we should stop calling it a sovereign state.

Well Antonin, these separate states have not been sovereign perhaps as far back as 1865. The certainly are not now. The US Central government has trod up state sovereignty for so long now, few even recognized the seperate states should be sovereign.

I know many conservatives who have no clue of the histories or purposes for the electoral college and the 10th amendment. They are good solid conservatives, just ignorant of these fundamental ideals.


26 posted on 06/25/2012 8:20:52 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Same thing they did here in 2000 Bush/Gore debacle. Same difference.


27 posted on 06/25/2012 8:21:46 AM PDT by libbylu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: oldbill
Under their weird reasoning, it is now legal to be an illegal alien. It is also now legal to take illegal employment.

Isn't it actually the case that it is still illegal to be an illegal alien per federal law, but the ruling says a state cannot make and enforce the same law because of federal supremacy in this area?

It is still illegal to be an illegal alien, but the current (and several previous administrations) refuse to enforce those particular federal laws.

28 posted on 06/25/2012 8:22:07 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Until Obama and/or Romney are out...


29 posted on 06/25/2012 8:23:38 AM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jimsin
Bill Maher's girlfriend? No thanks! John Wayne pwns noobs. A fact proven by scientists
30 posted on 06/25/2012 8:23:41 AM PDT by tumblindice (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

I have the solution. Don’t call INS in these matters instead purchase suspect illegal immigrants a bus ticket to D.C. with the address of a congressmen or senator they can lodge with.


31 posted on 06/25/2012 8:24:22 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
We got slaughtered in SCOTUS on this today.

I'm not so sure. The ruling said that immigration policy is set only by the Federal government. First, I believe this is in agreement with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?

32 posted on 06/25/2012 8:24:41 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
The biggest problem I see from this is that AZ calls ICE and they do nothing. Until Obama is out.

What makes you think that Romney will improve things? Everything he has said or refused to say on the issue indicates that he welcomes illegal immigration and is not at all averse to amnesty and a fairly rapid transition to permanent One Party Democrat Government that will be occasioned by all the new Democrat/Socialist voting citizens.

33 posted on 06/25/2012 8:26:24 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Scalia exposes one of the major deceits in this current atmosphere: I hold a CCW in Tennessee, yet there are states which have been 'granted' the right to not recognize that law in Tennessee which allows me to carry concealed legally; so on the one hand the states are allowed by the black robed oligarchs to institute legal controls over their territory defining what is licit or illicit, yet they are denied that right by the black robed oligarchs when they are being invaded by an illicit army!

Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sies with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.

34 posted on 06/25/2012 8:27:09 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Scalia exposes one of the major deceits in this current atmosphere: I hold a CCW in Tennessee, yet there are states which have been 'granted' the right to not recognize that law in Tennessee which allows me to carry concealed legally; so on the one hand the states are allowed by the black robed oligarchs to institute legal controls over their territory defining what is licit or illicit, yet they are denied that right by the black robed oligarchs when they are being invaded by an illicit army!

Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sides with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.

35 posted on 06/25/2012 8:27:25 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

As a rabid border enforcement supporter, and an avowed enemy of the idea of illegal immigrants staying here, I am not as inclined to view these rulings to be as entirely negative as folks might expect me to be.

On the surface it seems the SCOTUS ruled that states are not allowed to set immigration policy. Even so, it seems the SCOTUS did uphold the idea that states can help enforce federal immigration laws.

Laws already exist to cover the employment of illegals. This and other duplications are probably unnecessary. What the court did uphold, is the plan to require officers to ask people they think to be illegal immigrants, for their papers.

If under further review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this is upheld, what is to stop states from doing work-place raids, at establishments they think to be employing illegals?

If I were the governor or a member of the Legislature in Arizona, I would be proposing work place enforcement within hours. Determining a work-place to be hiring illegals, the federal government would be forced to take legal action against that establishment.

Very good!


36 posted on 06/25/2012 8:27:35 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/21/1101935/-Romney-Will-Deport-Children

Now, will he? I don’t know, but I do know that with Obama in, nothing changes. Guaranteed.


37 posted on 06/25/2012 8:32:17 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
Until Obama is out.

But who was the last president to actually enforce immigration law? Clinton didn't. Neither Bush did. I'm not sure about Reagan, or Carter or Johnson or Kennedy. We know Eisenhower did enforce the law.

And, I put huge blame on the two Bushes for the problem we now have. GHWB was the first full term after the 1986 amnesty and he did not enforce the law, and all presidents since have followed suit.

38 posted on 06/25/2012 8:32:37 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: oldbill

Your forgetting “national defense” (which “border patrol” arguably is) is also exclusively of FED purview.

Attack Dumb0 all you want for not enforcing immigration laws, but at least respect SCOTUS for trying to uphold federalism in the face Dumbo’s total illegality.

As another poster wrote me up thread, maybe Scalia’s dissent will push a coalition of states to petition the court for relief from that illegality. We can hope.


39 posted on 06/25/2012 8:32:53 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ontap

Ginxberg and Sotomeyor voted with the majority.


40 posted on 06/25/2012 8:33:42 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

From what I can see they upheld the right of cops in Arizona to check the immigration status of people they stop, but struck down the portion that required immigrants to carry their papers. WTF????????


41 posted on 06/25/2012 8:35:01 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevao

There is a big difference between what the Constitution grants to the federal government, the very specific power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and the broad extension to policies that have nothing to do with immigration. All other powers except those enumerated in the Constitution are with the states, and the people.

That part of immigration which is allowed is the part that deals with naturalization. The illegal entry and presence of aliens in the US is not a naturalization process, unless you believe that an illegal alien is accomplishing his first step to naturalization, in which case the whole world will sneak in here illegally to get naturalized.

Getting employment is not part of any naturalization process.


42 posted on 06/25/2012 8:35:56 AM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio

so a federal court upheld federal power?

color me shocked

next you’ll feign surprise when the federal courts uphold any and all federal taxes on individuals


43 posted on 06/25/2012 8:38:07 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000

you sir are correct on all counts...

the feds exceeded their authority by trying to force local police officers not to do their jobs...

arizona exceeded it’s authority by trying to pass it’s own immigration laws...

The scotus got it right..

Perhaps if this argument were framed in a different way, say, suing for damages caused by the fed refusing to enforce immigration law???


44 posted on 06/25/2012 8:38:40 AM PDT by joe fonebone (I am the 15%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I understood they sent that provision back to the lower court for reconsideration.


Yup. They didn’t uphold it. They just punted on it. So there is nothing in this ruling for us to cheer.


45 posted on 06/25/2012 8:39:21 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
ANNIE COULTER ....8 best sellers MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW ....CONSTITUIONAL EXPERT....probably way smarter than you ..Bwahahaaahaaha wait a min. surely way smarter...

But YOU can be smart too, lad...read all of her books then come back to see us....johnny....hahaahaha
46 posted on 06/25/2012 8:39:45 AM PDT by jimsin (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

AZ should send them on a one way bus to that wonderful “sanctuary city” of San Francisco.


47 posted on 06/25/2012 8:40:47 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

“Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.”
____________________________________________

Apples and Oranges.


48 posted on 06/25/2012 8:40:50 AM PDT by Artcore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kevao

Article 1, Section 8? Yes, but doesn’t that same section give the States the authority to call on the militia to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

I would consider what is going on in our border States, especially Arizona, an INVASION...


49 posted on 06/25/2012 8:41:06 AM PDT by BedRock ("A country that doesn't enforce it's laws will live in chaos, & will cease to exist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TonyInOhio; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...
Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

50 posted on 06/25/2012 8:41:59 AM PDT by HiJinx (He who controls the water, controls life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 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