CALLER: Oh, yeah, yeah. If we can't win with something with Kagan recused (bitter chuckle), we're not gonna win something with her in there.Posted on 06/25/2012 12:12:23 PM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let's go to the phones. Who's first? Oh! Good. Gary in Maricopa, Arizona. Great to have you, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Hi. Thank you, Rush. I just want to agree with everything you said. You know, even with Kagan being recused on this one, we couldn't even win this. The Supreme Court threw out all the teeth, all the enforcement methods that we can use. And it's just opening us up to lawsuits. They're already going after Arpaio. Now any other cop that starts trying to enforce any sort of immigration thing is going to be in the same boat.
RUSH: Right.
CALLER: I think that that's why Obama quit threatening and insulting the Supreme Court. He knew this ruling, and I think he knows that they're gonna uphold Obamacare.
RUSH: They're gonna uphold it, you think?
CALLER: Oh, yeah, yeah. If we can't win with something with Kagan recused (bitter chuckle), we're not gonna win something with her in there.
RUSH: Well, I see what you mean. You think the oral arguments, then, don't give any indication whatsoever way the court's gonna rule?
CALLER: No.
RUSH: You could be totally right. Oral arguments often are meaningless wherever they happen, at whatever level of court.
CALLER: And they have to look like they're thoughtful and challenging the people that are arguing.
RUSH: Right. Well, I want to share with you a couple of things since I have you on the phone. First off, I want to get your reaction to this. I've got the UK Daily Mail, and their headline is: "Blow to Obama as Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Portion of Arizona Immigration Law -- The split verdict could hurt President Obama during this contentious election year since his administration was the one to bring the suit to court." This, of course, is the provision where the cops can stop and check.
CALLER: What are the cops actually going to do if somebody's committing a crime, or driving a car and gets pulled over for speeding and they just say they don't have ID? How are they going to enforce it? And if I was a cop, or if I was a law enforcement official, and I started trying to do anything, I would look at what they're doing to Arpaio and go, "Boy, oh, boy. Do I really want to have the same thing happening to me?"
RUSH: Well, that's an excellent point. Here's more from Scalia, by the way. Scalia actually went to the courtroom and read from his dissent. That doesn't always happen. Sometimes dissents are just filed and quoted from, but he read a lengthy dissent from the bench. He said, among other things, "'After this case was argued and while it was under consideration,' he said, 'the secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants.'
"This was a reference to the decision by the Obama administration this month to let younger immigrants -- the administration estimates the number as approximately 800,000 -- who came to the United States as children avoid deportation and receive working papers as long as they meet certain conditions. 'The president has said 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 laws,' Justice Scalia went on.
"'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 federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,'" and he's exactly right. All this was... Let's stop and remember. All the Arizona law was was a restatement of federal law. The federal government was not enforcing the law. Arizona, therefore, wrote its own law to be able to enforce that practically mirrored the federal law, and that's what was struck down. And Scalia doesn't believe it.
"But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing" it? "But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," and he's exactly right. I tell you, I'm... Well, actually I'm not and I can't tell you why. I was gonna say, "I'm surprised that Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberals on three of these four provisions," but actually I'm not. But I can't tell you why I'm not. (interruption)
I know it isn't fair. I was saying what I was thinking, and I shoulda stopped in the middle of the thought for a second, because I can't tell you why I'm really not surprised. (interruption) No, it's not the pressure they're putting on him. (interruption) No, it's not the pressure they're putting on him. (interruption) No, it's nothing... (interruption) No, no, no. I was just warned, that's all. (interruption) No, no, no. Do not try to goad me on this. I really can't say. I'm protecting a source. I can't say.
The cops can still call the ICE guys when they pull somebody over. But some people, like the caller said, are very concerned about history. If they're... (interruption) Well, I know. They're going to call the federal government which will say, "What? You got who? Deal with it yourself! We're not coming. We're not enforcing that." That's all this was. 
Scalia is so right on money on this. It boggles the mind. All Arizona did was write a law that mirrors the federal law that Obama was not enforcing. And the court told 'em today they can't do that. It's disheartening.
I don't know if it portends anything on health care or not.
And nobody else does, either.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: More from Scalia in his dissent on the Arizona ruling today, claiming that it denies Arizona the right to sovereignty. Scalia said, "Today's opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit's injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona's law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there." In other words, the naturalization power was given to Congress not to abrogate states' power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it.
So Scalia here is refuting the court's claims that the stricken provisions encroached on the federal government, arguing the legislation aims only to strengthen the safety of Arizona's borders. There's no license to assume that officials in Arizona would use legislation to harass anybody, Scalia added. He's right. The court basically said to Arizona that all states gotta defer to the Feds. You can't supersede 'em. Fed's all powerful. Federal government's all powerful. If there are federal laws on the books and the federal government does not enforce them, you're stuck. You can't do anything about it. If there are the laws that say such-and-such people are not allowed in your state because they're illegal or what have you, and the Feds don't enforce the law, there's nothing you can do, you gotta let 'em in.
It is mind-boggling, as Scalia said.
END TRANSCRIPT
SCOTUS is afraid of der Fuhrer Barry. They’re going to chicken out on ObamaCare too. They all wet their robes today.
Well folks the respectable right makes one huge mistake everyday, they allow the Left the notion of moral superiority, and moral superiority trumps law, everyday. Send money to the GOP, they are going to need a severence check.
This descision does not bode well for the striking down of BO-care.
A sad byproduct of this ruling is that it condemns Mexico to forever be a hellhole.
If the U.S. weren’t a “safety valve”, Mexico would have to get itself together and actually work as a functioning State for her citizens.
But, instead, it’s disgruntled or disaffected citizens can just bleed off into our country, preventing the impetus for meaningful change, whether that would have occured by petition or by revolution.
Why? What does one have to do with the other?
But why would they be? They’re life appointments. If anything they should flip the bird to the bastard for they way he’s treated them (eg, State of the Union)
Has anyone found a link to Scalia’s dissent.
thanks
“Has anyone found a link to Scalia’s dissent.”
Here is his Bench Statement:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/372493/scalia-statement.pdf
If the Supes can decide against the common sense parts of the AZ law who knows what they will do?
In the AZ ruling they let stand the heart but emasculated enforcement. IOW sure you can question people stopped for investigation of other possible offenses but dang if you can do anything about. The feds certainly won’t.
So in the healthcare ruling they might say something like, yeah it’s not really the letter of the Constitution but it seems like a good thing so let’s kick it down the road and let second term BHO or first term RINO deal with it.
A couple of thoughts:
AZ can detain until immigration status is determined.
ICE has to say yes or no; just can’t say “let ‘em go”
If ICE identifies the detainee as illegal, confiscate any illegally obtained driver’s licence, state welfare benefits, including Food stamp cards. Check for other identity fraud.
Napolitano may not deport the illegals, but surely the state can withold state befits.
The Supes just ruled in favor of Corporations not being restricted in contributing to elections on the same day. A major blow to the left. They could overturn Obamacare based on that premise as well.
The most disappointing part was seeing Roberts abandon the conservative wing of the court and stick it to Arizona.
True, that is a win. So it’s basically 50-50.
BTW Sheriff Joe on Cavuto now.
Scalia took the trouble to read his dissent in the chamber because he knows that dissents can become precedents. They are legal arguments that often shape future decisions. Plenty of stupid Lefty USSC decisions began as dissents from earlier, sound decisions.
In my opinion, Scalia's dissent is occurring at the high-water mark of Federal power. He's giving new life to state sovereignty by pointing out from the bench that the Federal government's right to exist derives from it. In the big picture, the Feds recede from here because they must—they're out of money. The states have begun to flex their muscles already. He just gave them a powerful basis for the next decade of state-sovereignty cases.
I'm not saying we'll all be happy next week. But the "enforcement monopoly" Scalia is mocking is so insane, the Feds have no way to clamp down on all the states that will blow them off over this and similar issues—such as voter-fraud prevention measures.
Bush should have made Scalia the Chief Justice. Instead he picked squishy, Nixonian Roberts.
Thanks for the link.
You’re welcome!
“it’s disgruntled or disaffected citizens can just bleed off into our country”
There is a lot more undesirables coming into this country than just disaffected citizens!!
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.