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

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Roberts backs Obama in Arizona immigration ruling
Contact Center Solutions Industry News ^ | Jun 25, 2012

Posted on 06/25/2012 4:23:29 PM PDT by KeyLargo

[June 25, 2012]

Chief Justice Roberts backs Obama in Arizona immigration ruling

WASHINGTON, Jun 25, 2012 (Los Angeles Times - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Helping drive (albeit from the back seat) the Supreme Court toward what amounted to a victory for the Obama administration in the Arizona immigration case was a man often seen as one of Obama's chief antagonists at the court -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.

(Excerpt) Read more at callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; fastandfurious; immigration; obama; roberts; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; supremecourt Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: KeyLargo

His two ADOPTED children came from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA. Can’t thinl od any other reason to vote with the Disgusting Liberals. If I’m wrong I will apologize.....but he disgusts me now.


2 posted on 06/25/2012 4:27:54 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

There’s one less thing we should thank W for.


3 posted on 06/25/2012 4:28:55 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
The USSC didn't make any new laws in the AZ case and left standing the authority of the state to direct cops to ask the question about legal presence in the US ~ a real blow to the Refuge Cities movement.

The leftwingtards probably figured that one out by now ~ and so did the rest of the majority in this case.

Now, what does that mean about the rest of the law ~ well, Congress can authorize the states to enforce federal immigration law if they wish. The claim of federal pre-emption was not exclusive ~ and the reference was to the degree Congress has already allowed states to do various things.

Up to Boehner.

4 posted on 06/25/2012 4:31:55 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That’s the problem with judges. You never know where they’ll go once seated.


5 posted on 06/25/2012 4:32:39 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Roberts was not to blame for the decision. Had he not voted for it, he would not have been able to assign the opinion to Kennedy.

Had he voted against it, the ruling would have been 4-4, upholding the decision of the 9th circuit, throwing out the entire law. At least part of the law can remain intact.


6 posted on 06/25/2012 4:33:58 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

7 posted on 06/25/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Thanks, W.


8 posted on 06/25/2012 4:36:48 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Not sure how accurate this is, but lawyer on Lou Dobbs commented on that. He thought Roberts sided with the liberals for part of the decision in order to maintain the provision for producing papers if stopped. Had he not joined them, the whole 9th circuit decision would have been upheld. That decision had struck down that provision also.


9 posted on 06/25/2012 4:39:06 PM PDT by Thanks RR Rest Well ("Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on getting Paul's vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This is incorrect - on the one provision that was upheld, the vote was unanimous, which means that provision would have been upheld regardless of how the other provisions turned out. Those votes went either 5-3 or 6-2, a 4-4 decision on any of them would have simply upheld the 9th circuit’s decision on that particular provision.


10 posted on 06/25/2012 4:39:06 PM PDT by Echo4C (We have it in our power to begin the world over again. --Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Is anyone going to sue a state regarding their sanctuary city laws? It seems those are illegal infringements of federal authority under this ruling.

Seems like these things always go one way.

11 posted on 06/25/2012 4:41:20 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

State or municipality?


12 posted on 06/25/2012 4:42:01 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“The justices were careful, though, to leave the door wide open to future challenges. “This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

Napolitano has ordered the feds not to cooperate with Arizona law enforcement.


13 posted on 06/25/2012 4:42:39 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Echo4C

The bottom-line, it still would not have made any difference


14 posted on 06/25/2012 4:43:03 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Now with this SCOTUS ruling...those Illegal Alien Sanctuary Cities can be taken to court and be successfully sued....of course if the courts follow SCOTUS precedent


15 posted on 06/25/2012 4:52:02 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (When I said "close the borders", I did not mean the bookstore chain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

On his show this morning, Rush said he’s suspicious of Roberts because of something he was told about him. He wouldn’t say what that something was. Doesn’t bode well for Thursday’s ruling on Obamacare imo.


16 posted on 06/25/2012 4:54:27 PM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Before it’s all said and done the feds are going to wish this ruling had gone differently.

I predict a sudden rash of lawsuits by states seeking recovery of damages from the federal government for it’s failure to enforce current immigration law.


17 posted on 06/25/2012 4:55:09 PM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ronald_Magnus

That’s why I googled his adopted kids.....Roberts is squeaky clean.


18 posted on 06/25/2012 4:57:27 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thanks RR Rest Well
This article provides some interesting perspective. Not sure how true it is but still worth a look.
19 posted on 06/25/2012 4:57:50 PM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
The AZ law started out as a way to defeat the sanctuary cities movement.

The USSC just destabilized that sort of thing by making it quite lawful for a state to direct the cops to inquire of status. AZ had a number of 'sanctuary cities" ~ to wit; Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and Tucson.

So much for the far leftwingtards in AZ and everywhere else.

20 posted on 06/25/2012 4:59:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Can you explain why this is a blow to refuge/sanctuary cities? I keep seeing remarks about that, but I don't see the logic. If one is found to be illegal in AZ, it's been made clear that the feds aren't going to do anything about it (and apparently, the Court says they don't have to). How does this translate negatively to cities who welcome illegals?
21 posted on 06/25/2012 5:04:35 PM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“Roberts was not to blame for the decision. Had he not voted for it, he would not have been able to assign the opinion to Kennedy.

Had he voted against it, the ruling would have been 4-4, upholding the decision of the 9th circuit, throwing out the entire law. At least part of the law can remain intact.”
****************************************************************************
Makes sense.


22 posted on 06/25/2012 5:04:51 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
How? The part of the law that was upheld UNANIMOUSLY was written to prevent so-called sanctuary cities from directing their local police to NOT check or ask about status of people they've stopped.

Arizona is free to pass a law with criminal penalties to direct the cops to ask.

Most of the sanctuary city nonsense exists in the 9th circuit jurisdiction ~ so there you have it.

Regarding Obama electing to have ICE not respond to AZ requests on status all that happens there is that AZ gets to hold a bunch of Mexicans hostage, just like obama. Enough more of this retromangancy and we should find almost all the Mexicans in the country tied up in tent cities in the desert.

23 posted on 06/25/2012 5:15:12 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Napolitano Says DHS Will Continue to Decide Which Illegals to Detain, Deport Despite SCOTUS Decision

By Edwin Mora

June 25, 2012

(CNSNews.com) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday that her agency will remain focused on prioritizing the removal of certain aliens despite the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.

Napolitano added that the Supreme Court decision will not interfere with the Obama administration’s newly employed policy not to deport certain young illegals.

“I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities. DHS remains focused on enhancing public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally,” she said in a statement released after the court ruling.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/napolitano-says-dhs-will-continue-decide-which-illegals-detain-deport-despite-scotus


24 posted on 06/25/2012 5:17:02 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Only “conservative” judges. You know exactly what you are getting with a liberal judge.


25 posted on 06/25/2012 5:17:32 PM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

When Roberts authors the decision tossing Obamacare out the window you will be back singing his praises.


26 posted on 06/25/2012 5:21:37 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Perhaps it is time for an Amendment that states that States are granted the power to enforce laws that the Federal Government refuses to enforce. There is no other way that States can protect themselves when the Feds choose to look the other way. Hopefully we will NEVER AGAIN have an Admin whose Justice Dept only enforces laws they like and ignores laws that will hurt their enemies (Republicans, Conservatives and all Americans who love this country).
27 posted on 06/25/2012 5:23:59 PM PDT by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

All OBama did was offshore jobs of those American least able to compete- minorities,elderly and teens.

Instead of moving the plants , he brought over the workers.

Now we get both the carbon and job loss.


28 posted on 06/25/2012 5:26:05 PM PDT by NoLibZone (I trust Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Cain, Perry, Bachman : I trust their judgment on their 2012 pick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Yup....in general you are right. The only liberal on the high court I can remember turning to the right is JFK’s justice White.


29 posted on 06/25/2012 5:30:14 PM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Not always.

The judge who turned the Hutaree loose was is a black female Clinton appointee. She put a serious slapdown on the feds over that.


30 posted on 06/25/2012 5:32:47 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Echo4C
’ the one provision that was upheld, the vote was unanimous, which means that provision would have been upheld regardless of how the other provisions turned out. Those votes went either 5-3 or 6-2, a 4-4 decision on any of them would have simply upheld the 9th circuit’s decision on that particular provision.’

Good analysis.
My bet now is that Roberts folds like soggy cardboard on Obamacare.

By Friday, we will know.
TWB

g

31 posted on 06/25/2012 5:48:42 PM PDT by TWhiteBear (Sarah Palin...The Flame of the North)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; SeminoleCounty
The AZ law started out as a way to defeat the sanctuary cities movement. So much for the far leftwingtards in AZ and everywhere else.

From Vegas to North Carolina, every non-sanctuary city is crawling with illegals...And they're choking off their schools, social services, heath care, welfare, you name it.

Look at your big so-called red states:

In Texas 70% of Illegal Aliens Receive Welfare

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/04/in-texas-70-of-illegal-aliens-receive-welfare/


32 posted on 06/25/2012 5:58:57 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thanks for explaining it so well. The man did what he had to do.


33 posted on 06/25/2012 6:02:11 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
When he does the right thing under the Constitution I will compliment him for it.

When he doesn't I'll complain.

Anything wrong with that?

34 posted on 06/25/2012 6:06:04 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Exactly. Glad to know someone else is paying attention to the realities of the case and the functioning of the court. Thanks Perdogg.


35 posted on 06/25/2012 6:06:04 PM PDT by TexasNative2000 (Jimmy Carter's incompetence + Richard Nixon's paranoia = Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Look, Robert’s take on the Arizona law was a reasonable take on issues which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The Obamacare case is new ground for the Supreme Court. The Supremes high point in what constitutes the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitute Clause is Wickard v. Filburn. A synopsis of tha case can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html

Wickard has been the most far-reaching case for where the Interstate Commerce Clause extends for 70 years. Obamacare requires that the law extend beyond the limits approved in this 1942 case. No lesser lights that Justice Scalia have upheld the Wicker doctrine. The question before the Court is whether Wicker can be extended.

My take is that the Court will say no. My take has always been Wicker was wrongly decided. I have argued that point since I was in law school. (N.B. I got an A in Constitutional Law.) Nevertheless, Wicker is the law of the United States.

If you believe that Wicker is settled law, which Scalia clearly believes, the next step is to determine whether circumstances have evolved to the extent that further expansion is warranted. My personal take is that the answer to that question is no, but no rational person can disagree that this country is more economically integrated in 2012 than it was in 1942.

There are other ways to argue the point, but the slamming a genuinely conservative justice because he made one discrete ruling that you would have not voted for if you were in Congress is folly.

Scalia is the best justice on the Court. Thomas is a close second. Roberts is a close third. Save your vitriol for Kennedy.

BTW: I predict that the mandate will fall either 5-4 or 6-3 (If it is 6-3 Sotomayor will vote to kill the mandate.) I further predict that the entire law will be determined to be unconstitutional 5-4. (If striking the entire law is a 5-4 decision Sotomayer will vote to uphold the entire thing. If it is a 6-3 decision, Sotomayer will be the swing vote to kill the mandate and keep most or all of the rest and will write the majority opinion.} Write it down.


36 posted on 06/25/2012 6:06:18 PM PDT by Tom D.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

Look, Robert’s take on the Arizona law was a reasonable take on issues which intelligent people of good will can differ.

The Obamacare case is new ground for the Supreme Court. The Supremes high point in what constitutes the limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitute Clause is Wickard v. Filburn. A synopsis of tha case can be found here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html

Wickard has been the most far-reaching case for where the Interstate Commerce Clause extends for 70 years. Obamacare requires that the law extend beyond the limits approved in this 1942 case. No lesser lights that Justice Scalia have upheld the Wicker doctrine. The question before the Court is whether Wicker can be extended.

My take is that the Court will say no. My take has always been Wicker was wrongly decided. I have argued that point since I was in law school. (N.B. I got an A in Constitutional Law.) Nevertheless, Wicker is the law of the United States.

If you believe that Wicker is settled law, which Scalia clearly believes, the next step is to determine whether circumstances have evolved to the extent that further expansion is warranted. My personal take is that the answer to that question is no, but no rational person can disagree that this country is more economically integrated in 2012 than it was in 1942.

There are other ways to argue the point, but the slamming a genuinely conservative justice because he made one discrete ruling that you would have not voted for if you were in Congress is folly.

Scalia is the best justice on the Court. Thomas is a close second. Roberts is a close third. Save your vitriol for Kennedy.

BTW: I predict that the mandate will fall either 5-4 or 6-3 (If it is 6-3 Sotomayor will vote to kill the mandate.) I further predict that the entire law will be determined to be unconstitutional 5-4. (If striking the entire law is a 5-4 decision Sotomayer will vote to uphold the entire thing. If it is a 6-3 decision, Sotomayer will be the swing vote to kill the mandate and keep most or all of the rest and will write the majority opinion.} Write it down.


37 posted on 06/25/2012 6:06:38 PM PDT by Tom D.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

I’m no Constitutional scholar, but if federal immigration laws supersede states laws, which makes sense, then the Justices ruled correctly. It’s not their fault the fed doesn’t enforce the law. When it comes down to it, it’s ours. What are we going to do about it?


38 posted on 06/25/2012 6:19:10 PM PDT by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
"Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts.

I think you've got it Key Largo. Roberts will certainly be aware, and his clerks have read Minor v. Happersett at some time in law school. They may even know about Chief Justice John Marshall, and may have even read his “Venus Decision”. They may even have read the definition of the intent of the 14th Amendmendment by its author, Congressman John Bingham. But Roberts didn't have the integrity to raise the obvious ineligibilty of Obama, who, in his own words, told us he is a naturalized citizen - “...a native-born citizen of the US”. Roberts’ legacy will be his commitment to a “living constitution.” He is, or is controlled by progressives, and clearly more afraid of their disapproval than showing honoring and preserving the Constitution.

For those just realizing that the media have been covering for Obama, here are the key citations from Minor v. Happersett, The Venus, The 14th Amendment, and Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, during the frantic spring of 2008 when Democrats Obama, McCaskill, Leahy, and Menendez submitted a bill, SB2678 and a Resolution SR 511, that had no legal force, but provided political talking points, to make McCain seem eligible so that no one dared raise issues about Obama’s obvious ineligibility:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….

“My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy.”

Count Roberts along with Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg. Don't be surprised when he swings the Obamacare vote. The Supreme Court and its justices are becoming politicized, party pawns with The Constitution around to provide talking points when it seems useful.

39 posted on 06/25/2012 6:26:27 PM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tom D.
Look, Robert’s take on the Arizona law was a reasonable take on issues which intelligent people of good will can differ.

That's what is so maddening, the liberals are playing nuclear war to win, with brand new "rights" emanating from the penumbra of the Constitution (Roe v Wade) while Republican justices are seemingly playing a polite game of Bridge with their wives.

40 posted on 06/25/2012 6:39:45 PM PDT by RJL (There's no greed like the greed of a liberal politician buying votes with your money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“... Up to Boehner.”

So that means nothing will be done. Zero will get his way again.


41 posted on 06/25/2012 6:46:00 PM PDT by CapnJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CapnJack
We have some degree of influence with Boehner. He needs to submit a comprehensive immigration law that simply authorizes the states to enforce federal statutes. After all the Constitutional requirement on Congress is to establish a UNIFORM RULE.

Tie that to two things ~ the debt ceiling and the continuing resolution and hold fast.

I'd make DHS executive paygrades dependent on passage ~ else they all turn into GS2s with janitorial duties. Easiest thing in the world to do.

42 posted on 06/25/2012 6:54:00 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
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...

43 posted on 06/25/2012 7:25:39 PM PDT by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Good point. I have a lot of respect for Roberts; I think he is a true conservative who does what he can, when he can.


44 posted on 06/26/2012 3:26:10 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

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