Skip to comments.Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement
Posted on 06/25/2012 11:01:20 AM PDT by thouworm
June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement
Rich food for thought in Justice Scalia's dissenting Bench Statement. I have taken liberty to change paragraphing for easier reading (but note Scalia's use of italics).
Scalia's last two paragraphs below. Full Bench Statement follows.
Arizona bears the brunt of the countrys illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereigntynot in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.
Not that I have seen. Nothing else issued except the full court opinion --- written by Kennedy and the added Scalia and Thomas opinions.:
Yes...and while they're at it why not recuse themselves from the Dept. of Agriculture's Food & Nutritional Services (SNAP/IBT) regulations? This is what's putting a huge drain this state's (and MOST states) funds.
Selective enforcement of federal law (the "Obama Precedent") is apparently the New Normal.
Did anyone stand with Scalia? Thomas or Alito?
Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement
Article, and # 1.
Thank you, thouworm.
>>>Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts voted against Scalia and tipped the decision for the Left.
No. The vote was 5-3. If Roberts had voted with the other three conservatives, the 4-4 vote would have upheld the 9th Circuit’s decision. His vote on this made no difference.
Indeed. If the states are soveriegn over immigration, then Arizona has no more right to tell California what to do than California has to do the same for Arizona.
Does Arizona really want to see all the illegal immigrant problems they are dealing with, turn into a legal immigrant problem as the ‘soveriegn state’ of California - right on the border, lets them in and gives them cards and the rest of it?
States are sovereign doesn’t just stop with Arizona. It would be an unmitigated disaster.
“that is an exact mirror of a federal law”
Scalia himself admits that the AZ law was not an ‘exact mirror’ of the federal law. This is why the provisions that were not an ‘exact mirror’ were struck down.
Had AZ passed an exact mirror, it would have been upheld in full instead of upheld in part and dismissed in part.
I like that!
`Course they could do a bit more damage too.
“The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.”
If the federal government were to remove habeaus corpus because it enabled ‘stricter enforcement’, would that be considered ok? Just because it’s stricter doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. AZ can enforce the federal law - no more or no less. They do not have the authority to alter the federal law however they see fit.
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law. Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law. Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.
And, see post 21 for link (Scalia and Thomas wrote dissenting opinions)
Yes indeed, and this is a good reason as well.
Lots of handwringing, folks seeing the decision as an Obama victory.
The core of the law was upheld, the most important part.
That's funny. Really funny because as I seem to recall, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend in a 'territory'[?] who was concerned about what would happen if it was rejected for statehood and Jefferson's reply was basically: "Nothing bad; you just are your own country in that case."
They did: NDAA.
I read it as soon as posted...thanks anyway for the ping in #9.
JR: Lone-voice-in-the-wilderness Ping
Arizona v. United States-— Scalia’s Dissenting Bench Statement
“Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.”
If Arizona wants to go at it alone - more power to them.
Staying in the US after a law was passed granting the states total control over immigration while at the same time bound to recognise all citizens - would be an unmitigated disaster.
If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.
Which isn’t a bad thing given our ‘choice’ between Obama and Romney.
I think this should be Arizona's next move - they should ANNOUNCE they will no longer detain persons with outstanding federal warrants for fear of interferring with federal law enforcement.
They should announce that they will no longer enforce the FEDERAL LAWS against bank robbery................
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.