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

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: 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: 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: 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: Williams

Here’s a plan:

Round-up illegals in those states whose state and federal reps. vote for more restrictive policies on illegals, securing the borders, etc. and send them to states whose reps vote for less border control, amnesty for illegals,etc.

And let’s not forget the home states of the members of the federal courts who come down AGAINST preserving our vanishing national character.

These clowns think it’s such a swell idea, let THEM live with these folks.

As cheap as I am, I’d even donate to such an effort.


72 posted on 06/25/2012 9:52:33 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (NOVEMBER 6th: THE END OF AN ERROR! Let us pray it's not the start of another!*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

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