Skip to comments.First Hispanic Supreme Court justice takes prominent role
Posted on 04/25/2012 6:16:51 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court was deep into arguments over Arizona's new immigration law on Wednesday when the high court's first Hispanic justice focused on how difficult it could be for police officers to determine whether someone they stop is in the United States legally.
"What information does your (federal) system have?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli as she methodically extracted a core element of the Obama administration's case against the state of Arizona.
"How does that database tell you that someone is illegal as opposed to a citizen?" asked Sotomayor, 57, born in the Bronx to parents who had migrated from Puerto Rico. "Today, if you use the names Sonia Sotomayor, they would probably figure out I was a citizen. But let's assume it's John Doe, who lives in Grand Rapids. ... Is there a citizen database?"
Puerto Ricans have for nearly a century been U.S. citizens, so Sotomayor's family did not face the dilemmas of many other Hispanics who moved to the United States. Yet Sotomayor, who grew up in a housing project and went to Princeton and Yale on scholarships, has referred to the sting of discrimination and feeling "different" among people from elite backgrounds.
Verrilli told her that while many federal databases exist, including one listing U.S. passport holders, there is no citizenship database. "So you have lots of circumstances in which people who are citizens are going to come up (with) no match," he added.
On Wednesday, as Sotomayor, who joined the court in 2009, heard her first major immigration case, she vigorously questioned both sides. She showed a particular concern for the plight of people who might be detained by police based on their race or ethnicity.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Give me an Industrial Size break here. This woman is a moron.
Doesn't this idiot cow know about this program from ICE? She should.
From their own website;
"Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE's priorities."
If the driver of a vehicle that is pulled over and cannot produce a valid driver's license...then detain them...for they have committed a crime...then run them through Secure Communities.
Give us all a break. She asked some questions that reflected her ignorance and all of a sudden she's a prominent force on the court. Very sad.
But not Rooters, of course.
Every time I think of the Jug Eared Jackass’s SC appointees, I think of this quote from Julius Caesar:
“The evil that men do lives after them....”
Thanks Bloody Sam Roberts, additional:
Former Appeals Court Judge and Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork doesn’t believe Sonia Sotomayor’s claim that she’s entirely governed by law based on her statements, decisions and biases.
e verify might help too
“WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!”
No, we are not.
I’ll bet you never saw this coming. /s
People are required by law to carry their driver’s licenses with them when they drive. If they don’t have one with them, there’s a very good chance they are problematic.
I know my driver’s license number by heart. Even if I forgot mine, I could identify myself and be on my way in minutes. They’d go back to their cruiser, pull up the information and my photo. End of story.
SowtoEore was unqualified for his position.
She’s been an affirmative action promotee all her life. My understanding of the AZ law is that the probable cause arises from criminal activity. The notification to ICE comes once no positive id can be provided. That’s it.
The suspect is still held based on their state or local violation/crime and if ICE chooses to do nothing they’ve simply been notified. What’s unConsitutional about that?
ICE is an existing federal executive branch agency. If the AZ law, which essentially calls for notification, is unConstitutional, then so is ICE.
Sounds to me like Sotomayor is asking the right questions. I have hopes for her - none for Hagan, since she has yet to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision. If ever an issue existed for a Supreme Court Justice to recuse, it would be Obamacare.
I don't want to get into the legalities, but it looks like the USSC is going to uphold some of this Arizona law. Even if they don't, Arizona law requires employers to E-Verify employment as WAS upheld by the Supremes in 2011 (a huge States' rights decision).
That alone, has had a measurable impact on Arizona. They are experiencing a mass migration back to Mexico and/or other more myopic "tolerant" States. If every State passed such legislation (some have and others are looking), the illegals would be migrating even more out of the USA, and employers would be forced to hire Americans. I'm good with paying a few more dollars for goods and services if citizens hold those jobs. Think economic growth. More money for Americans the more they spend on consumable and durable goods the more we climb out of stagflation.
As a long time illegal immigration opponent for over (2) decades (FAIR member from 1987), I've always believed that if we stop the attraction for jobs by requiring employers to verify and absorb penalties for not doing so, the illegals will have to look elsewhere. While I wish we had built the wall, and I joined the Minutemen in Arizona in 2005, the biggest impact has been the E-Verify system.
The States are finally getting fed up with the Fedgov not doing it's immigration duties and infringing on States' rights in other matters as defined in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Certain States give me hope. Arizona is a leader.
Think about that any time someone laments Santorum isn't the nominee.
Think about that any time someone laments Santorum isn't the nominee.
HIGHspanic? I thought she was LAtina?
Is she bi-national?
The Senate always just "rubber-stamps" presidential USSC nominees. Why that occurs, I don't know. My guess is it's about the "good ole boys" club in both parties. Other than Bork and Thomas, I can't remember the last time the Senate contested a Supreme court nominee. Of course, it was the Dimocrats who fought against the above.
I'm no longer a republican. They are gutless. Obama will get 4 more years to destroy us with "liberal lite Romney" as a weak nominee. Would have loved to see Newt debate Bambi, but he wasn't pretty enough in our "cult of personality". With all Newts faults, he knows what's good about our heritage and history, but has a goofy smile and talks above the dumb-downed populace. Santorum was also a pretty boy like Mittens, but doesn't know squat. Ron Paul is a dipshit.
This dying nation wants smooth talking celebrities who speak in generalities for what they will do for the "gimmes", and that includes Soccor-Moms. Newt knows history and the failings of socialism, but no one wants to hear such big concepts and historical precedents as to why Hopey and Changey is failing. Just look pretty and promise me stuff, please. Pfft.
Although it has been disputed that Alexander Tytler said the following, it still holds true within the context of my point:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Here are some verifiable quotes by Alexis de Tocqueville, a scholar of early American history.
"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."
"Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom."