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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS decision thread for Monday, June 25th, 2012 (10am EDT)

Posted on 06/25/2012 3:10:01 AM PDT by Perdogg

1. Az Immigration Case

2. Stolen Valor Act

3. ObamaCare Mandate

4. ObamaCare Severability


TOPICS: Breaking News; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 3threadswithnothing; fooledyouagain; justjokingagain; negativenaybobsofneg; notbreakingnews; notreallybreaking; perdogg; ruling; sb1070; scotus; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 401-403 next last
To: Perdogg

201 posted on 06/25/2012 7:24:36 AM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

Arizona, Rather big win.


202 posted on 06/25/2012 7:24:54 AM PDT by MindBender26 (America can survive 4 years of Romney. She cannot survive another 4 years of an unfettered Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000
Amy Howe:
We do not expect any additional opinions today, so NO health care today.


That would probably move the HC decision to Thursday morning.

[Maybe Howe is wrong .... ]
203 posted on 06/25/2012 7:25:29 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

For whom?

Both sides declaring victory?


204 posted on 06/25/2012 7:25:29 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

” - - - Actually, it’s often just one person: “Swinger” Kennedy. “

Is SUPREME Kennedy the real Ruler of Obamanation?

Must be a tough job.

Probably helps him do his job to know that he was chosen by politicians, and not by folks like you and me.

Ahhhhh - - - Democracy in action!


205 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:13 AM PDT by Graewoulf ((Dictator Baby-Doc Barack's obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Williams

That’s a federal warrant from what i just read.


206 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:13 AM PDT by wiggen (The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
From blog:

Tom: Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.

207 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:28 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Perhaps CJ Roberts just wants to make Dumb0 squirm for a few more days by witholding the decision till Thurs.


208 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:39 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

All I can say is, God Bless Justice Scalia! I love that guy!


209 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:46 AM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

10:26

Tom:
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.

10:27

Tom:
The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the “check your papers” provision. And the Court’s opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.


210 posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:59 AM PDT by NeverEVERKerry (I AM JIM THOMPSON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Williams

This split on the AZ case doesn’t give me a good feeling as to what’ll happen with Obamacare. Sounds to me the USSC is trying to apply the “something for everyone” approach.


211 posted on 06/25/2012 7:27:09 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: sunmars
That was the main thing, police can check if you are illegal before releasing you. That's what it sounds like to me. That's the most important part. If they need a warrant to then make an arrest... well, OK. That's do-able. It's a hassle, but it sounds like the police get to keep the ability to check up on immigration status.
212 posted on 06/25/2012 7:27:13 AM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Bill Buckner

How We Got Here

The Supreme Court decision will include the following provisons of S.B. 1070 which were blocked by Federal District Judge Susan Bolton in July 2010. Below we analyze the sections, and provide our prediction of how the Court is likely to act. Even if just those two provisions we expect are upheld, it will unleash an effort to extend similar provisions to states across America…

•Section 2(B) – Check Immigration Status Based Upon “Reasonable Suspicion”
This section requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. (Note: “reasonable suspicion” means having a valid reason to suspect unlawful activity, but not enough evidence to make an arrest.) This section also requires state and local authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest, regardless of whether the person is suspected of being in the country unlawfully.
NOTES: This is the most critical provision. Despite numerous lower court arguments and endless news and blog disputes, “reasonable suspicion” has long been settled law. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated that it does not violate the 4th Amendment.Also, the U.S. Solictor General Donald Verilli himself had to concede that law enforcement officers in Arizona could ask about people’s legal immigration status even before this law passed. Once you concede that, the fight becomes simply whether the state can direct its officers how to exercise their discretion. And that is clearly permissible.

SWA expects the Court to uphold this Section.

•Section 3 – Illegal immigration a State Crime
This provision makes it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to violate the provisions of federal law requiring them to apply for “registration” with the federal government and to carry a registration card if one has been issued to them. Violations of this provision are punishable by up to 20 days in jail for a first violation and 30 days in jail for subsequent violations.
NOTES: The Administration’s argument against this provision is that Federal law proscribes only a civil violation for such offenses, whereas Arizona makes the act of being in the state illegally a criminal offense. Comments by justices including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito, show that there is less than a consensus to uphold this Section. However this provision takes on new importance in light of Obama’s recent amnesty decree for so-called “Dreamers”, which would outrageously extend to well over 2 million illegal aliens. If the Court leaves this Section intact, those individuals would still be subject to jail time in Arizona, despite Obama’s edict.

SWA believes the Court is more likely than not to overturn this Section.

•Section 5(C) – Day laborers solicitation
This section makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants who are not authorized to work in the United States to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work within the state’s borders. The term “solicit” means any form of communication, including a gesture or nod, indicating that a person is willing to be employed. Violations of this provision are punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
NOTES: This is the least important provision of S.B. 1070 to Arizona. That said, it is also quite problematic, mostly because it is the subject of litigation elsewhere, including a Redondo Beach, California provision that was first upheld and then blocked by a Federal appeals court, and an appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. In addition, Justice Susan Bolton recently blocked this provision in Arizona’s S.B. 1070 as well, due to a separate lawsuit – asserting that it violates the First Amendment protect of ”commercial speech” (which seems ludicrous to SWA, since illegal aliens could never legally register as commercial entities, such as sole proprietors or LLCs). The justices may be content to let this case work its way up to them and be decided separately. Or, they could uphold the provision, which would surprise us and many Court observers. One issues which could be a wildcard is the Court’s ruling in favor of Arizona’s E-Verify law and employer sanctions in 2010 – which might lean Kennedy towards support of Section 5(C).

SWA believes the the Court is likely to reject this provision.

•Section 6 – “Probable Cause” Arrests of Illegal Aliens
This section authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a warrant where “probable cause” exists that they committed a public offense making them removable from the United States. (Note: “probable cause” means having enough evidence of unlawful activity to obtain a warrant or make an arrest.) Under the provision, Arizona law enforcement officers may arrest lawfully present immigrants for crimes committed outside the state, or for crimes for which they were previously incarcerated, if the commission of such a crime is grounds for deportation.
NOTES: This is another critical “must have” section, which contributed greatly to the exodus of 100,000 illegal aliens from Arizona after the passage of S.B. 1070. It is a huge deterrent, since they would perpetually be under threat of arrest and removal. And based on the arguments before the court, many similar to the arguments over Section 2(B), the justices did not see any Federal preemption applicable in this Section. In addition, this section is perfectly compatible with the Immigration Reform Acts of 1996 establishing 287(g) Federal-State cooperation in enforcement of immigration laws.

SWA expects the Court to uphold this section.

The gist of the Obama Administration’s argument against the above provisions is that they preempted by federal law, meaning they are in conflict with federal law because federal law takes precedence as the law of the land. The basis of this argument is the Constitutional Article I, section 8, clause 4:

“The Congress shall have Power…To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization….”

The Administration has also argued that Arizona’s law impedes the United States’ ability to interface with foreign nations by interfering with foreign nationals, a bizarre claim butressed by Mexico’s filing of an amicus curiae against S.B. 1070.

Of course the Administration did not go anywhere near the Constitutional section that – if honored – would make the Arizona law completely unneccessary, Article IV, Section 4:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion….”

We hope that five justices see through the hypocrisy of the Administration’s position against Arizona, and uphold most of 1070, if not all of it.


213 posted on 06/25/2012 7:27:13 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
From blog:

Tom: The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

214 posted on 06/25/2012 7:27:42 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Williams

Big victory? Huh? On what? Arizona? It’s a mixed ruling...not a big victory for anyone. CNN...sheeeesh..


215 posted on 06/25/2012 7:28:23 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Per FoxNews SC reporter: No healthcare decision today.


216 posted on 06/25/2012 7:28:48 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Batman11

Lots of lawyers making lots of money.


217 posted on 06/25/2012 7:29:05 AM PDT by AGreatPer (Any Republican. Just NO Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: RedMDer

Section 2 (b) is the most critical section. Hopefully, it looks like that got thru. Section 6 was not upheld. It was the second most critical portion. Big disappointment.


218 posted on 06/25/2012 7:29:30 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000

Sadly I feel pretty strongly Obamacare will be upheld.

CNN is just beginning to realize that cops in Ariz can check immigrant status.

But certainly we lost some important issues and they sided in general with federal preemption of immigration policy.


219 posted on 06/25/2012 7:29:46 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

IT’S A BIG WIN FOR THE PREZ....per CNN.


220 posted on 06/25/2012 7:29:56 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Ronin

My thoughts exactly. I’m very uneasy about these decisions. I think they would’ve come down Friday if they were easy or lopsided. They are going to affect us for decades to come.

It’s kind of like the old wives tale about a drowning person coming up for air three times before he goes down for good. For me, these decisions feel like America coming up for air the third time.


221 posted on 06/25/2012 7:30:10 AM PDT by LibWhacker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

Does anyone have the votes on the Arizona decision? If I heard correctly, Kagan recused herself which means that Roberts must have voted with the majority as a 4-4 decision would have left the 9th circuit’s decision intact.


222 posted on 06/25/2012 7:31:00 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

No, what the court is doing to affirming the Federal obligation in Immigration control, at the same time, saying the Govt did not make the case that what AZ was doing was unconstitutional.


223 posted on 06/25/2012 7:31:10 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

They’re right.


224 posted on 06/25/2012 7:31:10 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

What was Roberts’ opinion? That will tell us a lot about how Obamacare is going to go. If Roberts is compromised we’re sunk.


225 posted on 06/25/2012 7:31:17 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
"Tom: The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated."

Yes, but what can they do after they check the papers? It looks like they can't arrest without a warrant and can't prohibit illegals from getting jobs.

226 posted on 06/25/2012 7:31:53 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: Williams
"

"But certainly we lost some important issues"

NOT, sent back to the 9th circus.

227 posted on 06/25/2012 7:32:06 AM PDT by AGreatPer (Any Republican. Just NO Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK

Well- actually- CNN is correct and I’m not. They struck down 3/4 of law so I bet Janet Brewer and Sheriff Joe aren’t too happy about now...


228 posted on 06/25/2012 7:33:02 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
10:31 Tom: On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.

I bet it will re: Obamacare, too.

229 posted on 06/25/2012 7:33:02 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Roberts voted with the majority.


230 posted on 06/25/2012 7:33:19 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
10:31 Tom: On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.

I bet it will re: Obamacare, too.

231 posted on 06/25/2012 7:33:24 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: djf
Checking immigration status of people detained by police UPHELD!!

But but but didn't the WH jester just pronounce that his ICE will not take action against these "undocumented DemocRATS", no matter how the police waste their time?
232 posted on 06/25/2012 7:34:32 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA; All

Amy Howe:
As part of Scalia’s statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president’s announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — something that was not part of the case.


233 posted on 06/25/2012 7:35:06 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Bears repeating, in the AZ immigration case Roberts voted with the majority to invalidate most of the AZ law.
234 posted on 06/25/2012 7:35:21 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

The essence of the SCOTUS ruling is this statement:

“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a
removable alien to remain in the United States.”

Thus, AZ can check on an immigrant’s status, but we CANNOT detain him to do so.

Everything else was struck down because the Federal government, according to the US Supreme Court, doesn’t want to enforce their own laws and the state cannot make them do so.

According to the ruling, the federal government says it is illegal to hire an illegal, but the illegal has the right to try to work and the state cannot impose a penalty that Congress has not specifically approved of.

Overall, I’d call this ruling a disaster for state policing of illegal immigration. It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.

DAMN! Just DAMMIT!


235 posted on 06/25/2012 7:36:34 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

So Reuters must have jumped the gun before they got the memo, but referring to the upholding of the key provision.

The AP, which will be more widely disseminated, spins the other way:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/06/25/us/politics/ap-us-supreme-court-immigration.html


236 posted on 06/25/2012 7:36:44 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

HC will be announced on Thursday


237 posted on 06/25/2012 7:36:59 AM PDT by halo66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Campaign finance appeal rejected. SC won't consider corporations free speech.

Super pacs are OK.

238 posted on 06/25/2012 7:37:03 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Fox judge Napolitano says the heart and soul of the Arizona law was struck down. Even the one preserved provision will quickly come back to the courts.

You cannot stop someone bc you suspect they are illegal. This also strikes at the heart of Alabama’s law.

Per judge N


239 posted on 06/25/2012 7:37:20 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
This split on the AZ case doesn’t give me a good feeling as to what’ll happen with Obamacare. Sounds to me the USSC is trying to apply the “something for everyone” approach.

I have felt the same way for awhile....today's climate is wishy washy...trying to please everyone.

240 posted on 06/25/2012 7:37:20 AM PDT by Fawn (DEAR JESUS....PLEASE LET OBAMA LOSE.....AMEN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
From blog:

Amy Howe: The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions. So there you have it.

Tom: From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy

Pray for this country.

241 posted on 06/25/2012 7:37:35 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Thursday for Dimb0care ruling...

Amy Howe:
The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions. So there you have it.

10:37 Tom:

From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.

That’s a good sign...


242 posted on 06/25/2012 7:37:35 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Thursday for Dimb0care ruling...

Amy Howe:
The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions. So there you have it.

10:37 Tom:

From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.

That’s a good sign...


243 posted on 06/25/2012 7:38:00 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: All

10:36 Amy Howe: The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions. So there you have it.


244 posted on 06/25/2012 7:38:00 AM PDT by RedMDer (https://support.woundedwarriorproject.org/default.aspx?tsid=93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

10:36
Amy Howe:
The Court will sit again on Thursday to announce the rest of the opinions. So there you have it.
10:37
Tom:
From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.
10:38
Amy Howe:
Thanks for joining us today. We almost cracked 100K on the Live Blog. And we didn’t crash!


245 posted on 06/25/2012 7:38:22 AM PDT by folkquest (Nothing is fool-proof because fools are so ingenious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000
health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy. That’s a good sign...

I don't know how you can see it that way, based on Roberts siding with the illegals.

246 posted on 06/25/2012 7:38:44 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

We won’t know until Thursday which way Roberts voted.


247 posted on 06/25/2012 7:39:00 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

Looks like all we can do in AZ is check their papers, and then tell the feds so & so is living here without documentation.

As if the feds will give a damn!


248 posted on 06/25/2012 7:39:53 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (A conservative can't please a liberal unless he jumps in front of a bus or off of a cliff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStone1000

A good sign?

Roberts voted AGAINST Arizona. If he & Kennedy are writing a joint opinion on HC, I have no hope whatsoever it will go in our favor.


249 posted on 06/25/2012 7:40:13 AM PDT by workerbee (We're not scared, Maobama -- we're pissed off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Maybe the Court wanted to throw the administration a bone before it strikes down Obamacare.


250 posted on 06/25/2012 7:40:13 AM PDT by mrs9x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 401-403 next last

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