Skip to comments.Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim
Posted on 04/25/2012 12:21:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administrations claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizonas immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal governments role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
It seems to me the federal government just doesnt want to know whos here illegally, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when its on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A recess appointment to SCOTUS indeed would be exactly the same as for any other recess appointment. When John Jay resigned as Chief Justice in July 1795, the Senate was in recess, so President Washington made a recess appointment of John Rutledge (a former SCOTUS Justice) as the new Chief Justice. Rutledge served until he resigned in December of 1795 following the Senate’s rejection of his nomination; had Rutledge not resigned, his recess appointment would have expired anyhow on June 1, 1796 (when the Senate session ended). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_rutledge