Supreme Court Justice Scalia SLAMMED Obama In His Arizona Immigration Dissent

Business Insider ^ | June 25, 2012 | Brett LoGiurato

[Free ThinkerNY]

In a scathing dissent of the Supreme Court's decision to strike down key provisions of the Arizona immigration law today, Justice Antonin Scalia advocated keeping the entire law in effect and took a shot at President Barack Obama's recent policy shift on deporting some young illegal immigrants.

Here are some of the highlights from his 22-page diatribe:

On Obama's new immigration directive:

The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to 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.

On the Supreme Court's decision, Scalia wrote that states would have "rushed to the exits" if the Constitution contained the court's ruling:

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.”

[workerbee]

Its a great dissent, which gains us nothing.

[Raycpa]

Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?

If we could use this test for every law, our current problems with big government would be gone.

[A_Former_Democrat]

I doubt Equal Protection too would have been enacted if the one-sided, quota-driven, sexual orientation results had been known as well.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

Fodder for the secessionists.

[Sequoyah101]

Yes, a great dissent that gains nothing. I can’t believe that Roberts was in on this. What has happened?

This is a government law, it needs to be enforced. It is an obligation of the government to enforce the law isn’t it?

[Buckeye McFrog]

Limbaugh just said that he was “not surprised” that Roberts was in on this. Then he refused to elaborate, saying it would give away his source.

[UCANSEE2]

Dear Mr. President:

You have armed the Mexican Drug Cartels. You have armed the Syrian Muslims. You have armed the Egyptian Muslims. You have armed just about every 'rebel' or 'religious fanatic' group on the planet.

All of them are coming here to attack us.

Don't you think it's time to arm the American rebels?

I want five of each of these.

(I like the name.... REMOTELY OPERATED DEATH CANNON)

[workerbee]

I see it that way too. The system of divided power assumes each side upholds its end in good faith. Clearly the executive is not doing that, yet the states are supposed to accept it? As Scalia points out, the concept of state sovereignty was just abolished. That being the case, I say AZ just starts trucking illegals out in any and all directions. If the feds can ignore their job, states can just quit paying for it.

[NonValueAdded]

On another thread I read it as speculating that Roberts joined with the majority to avoid a 4-4 tie which would mean the entire law would be struck down (as the 9th Circus would not be overridden). Therefore his joining with the minority enabled the partial upholding of the law. That was the theory anyway. Sort of like the Speaker voting the other way in order to be able to move for reconsideration.

[luvbach1]

You’re right, but his eloquent, incisive, and coherent dissent highlights what’s wrong with the court when doctrinaire, agenda-driven libs tip the majority.

[SuperLuminal]

Hmmm...Another decade, another GOP judge goes full commie.

Won't be surprised if this latest scumbag turncoat, Roberts, joins the other commies to rule in favor of deathcare...

[hummingbird]

“Then he refused to elaborate, saying it would give away his source.”

Maybe his brother, David or Mark Levin?

[Terry Mross]

This is the same as saying “Boy, that s.o.b. is going to get a nasty letter from me in the morning!”