Posted on 04/25/2012 1:27:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Signs it's not going well for this government and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the Supreme Court: when a traditionally liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama has no idea of the argument they're trying to make.
Enter Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
"Putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said to Verrilli.
"Because I, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?"
Verrilli had a rough time today trying to sell the Supreme Court justices — even the liberal ones — against the Arizona immigration law.
For context, Verrilli opened with a three-pronged opening argument against a controversial provision in SB 1070 that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion. It went like this:
1. Two million Hispanics live in Arizona — 400,000 illegally. Almost immediately, Justice Antonin Scalia cut him off because it "sounds like racial profiling to me." Earlier, Verrilli assured Chief Justice John Roberts that he would not attempt to argue on racial profiling grounds.
2. He moved onto the accountability issues of state officials enforcing federal laws but not being held accountable. No justice seemed to buy that.
3. The new amount of reports from state officials would overburden federal resources.
But that argument drew the skeptical comments from Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Why doesn’t burrax atty just call all the SCOTUS judges ‘RACIST’ and be done with it? That’s how all liberals “win” their arguments when they cannot argue logically.
The regime should’a sent their Great Constitutional Scholar, Hussein to argue b4 SCOTUS today.
This is one of the reasons that I’d just as soon see Obama reelected as Romney.
The court is standing up to Obama. Congress has started standing up to Obama.
Romney will have a free pass from Democrats, RINOS and Establishment Republicans to implement the same agenda as Obama. Obama won’t.
This must REALLY sting Obama and Holder...coming from a Wise Latina and all.
Two words: Executive Order.
Why is it that Obama keeps losing SCOTUS decisions? Is it the incompetency of those representing his cause, or is it that Obama and his cronies continue to oppose the Constitution of America.
Why is it that Obama keeps losing SCOTUS decisions? Is it the incompetency of those representing his cause, or is it that Obama and his cronies continue to oppose the Constitution of America?
That has always been the problem. The GOP only acts conservative when they are a minority.
“He moved onto the accountability issues of state officials enforcing federal laws but not being held accountable”
As if somehow federal officials are held to account more than state officials. Ha, ha!
Oh, wait, I get it, they’re not being held accountable by the feds. Because it’s 1865 and states are racist and can’t govern themselves. They need the coolheaded, disinterested, enlightened overseers in Washington to tell when and how to check someone’s citizenship status. Hint: the answer is never.
I predict the Kenyan will be coming out long about tomorrow with another threat to the justices. He’s too stupid to learn just like his DOJ attorney.
“Why is that Obama ...
Arrogance.
He’s not used to hearing the word `No.’ All his life has been:
“That’s a good thing you did, Barry/Barack—that’s a real good thing!”
He reached his level of competence as a communist organizer.
I believe Sotomayor is going to rule against the mandate in obamacare as well.
Just a hunch. I think she is alot more conservative than we think.
Fiscal conservatism is the spoken ideology of whatever party doesn’t control the House of Representatives - where (by in large) they decide where all that sweet sweet money is going.
It was spend spend spend with no end in sight for the Democrats - but as soon as they lost control of the House - suddenly fiscal restraint was the order of the day.
The GOP talks a good game about financial conservatism - but once they have control of the House - ideology takes a back seat to the fun fun fun of spending ALL THAT MONEY!
That would not be surprising to me. I’m reading todays transcript. She appears sane.
From what i have read about her - she is a prety fair judge during her appellate term, particularly on commercial matters.
Wouldnt it be funny if she turned into a conservative jurist over time? LOL = the left would melt.
You mean like the way Gov Romney used his office to equate Sodomy with Marriage?
Be still my heart.
Mucho thnx for the link.
Heh ... I think the "Wise Latina" is a flat-out communist ...
So there's lots of room for her to be "more conservative than [I] think".
The SCOTUS argument on ObamaCare demonstrated the feebleness of the federal government’s position. This argument on Arizona’s immigration statute, on the other hand, is more telling of the DOJ’s incompetence. Either way, let’s just hope that their failings prove decisive in both ultimate outcomes.
That was wise of her.
“Congress has started standing up to Obama.”
Like what...the debt ceiling, gutting the military, Israel, money to the Muslim Brotherhood, Fast & Furious, etc.?
One was concern that she was racist. The "wise latino" being superior to old white men comment added to this concern. As well as the ruling against the white firefighters who were denied promotions after blacks claimed the firefighting test was somehow racist because blacks didn't do as well on it. It's still hard to imagine a racist firefighting test. There was concern that she was heavily involved in "identity politics".
The second concern, apparently was that both sides felt her opinions sometimes missed the forest for the trees. Missed the constitutional issues involved and that she was an intellectual lightweight.
The second may play to conservative's favor, in that the Supreme court is a committee and she will be exposed to the legal reasoning from the others. Thus, if she's a lightweight she may be easily swayed by sound legal reasoning.
Sotomayer appears more sane and conservative than Mitt’s judicial appointments in Mass... that really says something.
It's not perfect. But it's not like the house is going to vote to impeach Obama, when the Democrat Senate isn't going to support the impeachment.
As opposed to the liberal judges that Gov. Romney appointed? Might as well be Obama. What's the difference?
Besides read the Sotomeyor threads today. She's likely to go against Obama on both Obamacare and Immigration.
See post 28 too. I’m not the only one thinking Obama’s appointees aren’t as bad as Romney’s. Both candidates have nearly the same agenda.
“This is one of the reasons that I’d just as soon see Obama reelected as Romney.
The court is standing up to Obama. Congress has started standing up to Obama.
Romney will have a free pass from Democrats, RINOS and Establishment Republicans to implement the same agenda as Obama. Obama won’t.”
Except when he (Obama) appoints up to two more justices in his second term. Then this whole charade will be a moot point.
That reminds me of a conversation that I had with a co-worker several years ago. He said that the reason for that is because the Republicans are convinced that the country is conservative in fiscal and economic matters only. He said tht whatever is more popular tends to be more important and in that respect; when it comes to social and cultural matters, the country is and always has been liberal.
Thank you very much.
Do you think tomorrow the msm’ers will be calling her a white hispanic?
ROFL! They would have a meltdown for the ages.
Bit of a stretch, that.
You missed one really big point, the elephant in the living room. We only have a 5 to 4 edge on the Court right now. The First and SEcond Amendments both hang by a thread. If only one of those five men dies, from whatever causes, the Illegal will be able to appoint his successor, with catastrophic results.
Romney will appoint justices just as liberal, possibly more so, but nobody will question it.
Disagree - in MA is had to deal with a heavy socialist legislature, judiciary and state government.
In WDC he will have a Republican House and Senate.
There are TWO elephants in the living room. Either one is going to appoint liberal judges. Look at Romney's RECORD. He appointed liberal whack jobs as Governor.
I'm not going to vote for the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-gun, pro-socialist Muslim loving illegal.
Neither am I going to vote for the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy, anti-gun, anti-gun, pro-socialist Mormon cultist.
I'm voting for GOODE NOT EVIL.
Disagree - in MA is had to deal with a heavy socialist legislature, judiciary and state government.
In WDC he will have a Republican House and Senate.
I only caught this in passing.....if anyone can flesh out any more details, please do.
We know that the Fascist-In-Chief will not care a whit what the Court rules....and his minions are already scurring about to carry out his diktats.
Leni
Leonida Martinez, from Phoenix, Ariz., second from left, and others take part in a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, as the court questions Arizona’s "show me your papers" immigration law.
see post #41
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and rule it as inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.
Interesting read, the minutes. Talk about being in a bubble. The administration is so far out of touch. They think they can jive talk their way around the rule of law.
That didn't require him to use his office to equate sodomy with marriage. And while a socialist legislature might have moderated his court picks, according to reports he picked some extreme liberals.
Romney's first act after being assured the Republican nomination was to name an open sodomizer as his chief spokesperson. Does that scream conservative to you? Because it screams flaming liberal to me!
See my response to 41 in 49.
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.