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 ...
“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.
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.
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.
Only “conservative” judges. You know exactly what you are getting with a liberal judge.
When Roberts authors the decision tossing Obamacare out the window you will be back singing his praises.
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.
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.
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.
Good analysis.
My bet now is that Roberts folds like soggy cardboard on Obamacare.
By Friday, we will know.
TWB
g
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/
Thanks for explaining it so well. The man did what he had to do.
When he doesn't I'll complain.
Anything wrong with that?
Exactly. Glad to know someone else is paying attention to the realities of the case and the functioning of the court. Thanks Perdogg.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.