The President said at a news conference that the new program is "the right thingto do" in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court opinion's looming specter of inutterable horror--"[i]f §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations," seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration lawsas written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive's refusal to enforce the Nation's immigration laws?
SB1070 got it right on the head soup to nuts....
Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement
Also, comments from live ScotusBlog:
Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.
Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.
http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/