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

[Fawn]

Roberts, Sandusky and JohnEdwards.....all got that ‘look’. They all give me the heebie jeebies....

[ScottinVA]

Ya just beat me by 50 seconds!! Great minds...

[JCBreckenridge]

“It means we have to trust Dingy Harry & Barry Obama to control the flood of Mexicans crossing our border and living here.”

Which is why it was a disaster to elect them in the first place. If you want control over immigration - don’t elect Obama.

SCOTUS can only do what is constitutional, and federal control over immigration is constitutional.

[butterdezillion]

The one to watch was Roberts. I’ve been saying for some time that I thought Roberts was compromised with threats of another Soros communist-Islamist run on the bank. Roberts has been acting crazy all along. I have a very, very bad feeling about him. If it’s true that he sided with the majority to strike down almost all of AZ 1070 then America is done. Soros has the entire system hostage.

Time to buy lots of ammunition and start writing the new Declaration of Independence. 4th of July should see a lot of American flags flown upside-down as an international signal of distress. The country has been taken hostage.

[MHGinTN]

The pirate Roberts was placed at the head of the court for reasons only now becoming obvious, for those paying attention. The statist empowerment must continue for the globalists’ agenda to be implimented over We The People.

[milagro]

Good point! And it makes clear that there IS a need for Congress to summon up the courage to address the knotty issue of enforcing immigration laws.

If I were Jan Brewer or the governor of any other state that has passed an immigration law, I would go to the Pubbies in Congress and have them declare Obama's "dream decision" unconstitutional, since it was done by fiat and not through an act of Congress, which the Constituion clearly requires.

Of course, this reveals my own "dream act": Pubbies exhibiting courage!

Arrgghhh!

[JCBreckenridge]

Again, it’s not a mockery. If each state were to have it’s own immigration laws, that would mean that the US would lose complete control over immigration. We dodged a bullet today - had AZ’s law been upheld, there would be nothing stopping CA from issuing ‘visa waivers’ to everyone who wanted them, effectively making everyone who went to CA a legal immigrant.

SCOTUS just put a stake through that gambit and puts the onus on we the people to elect a president who does support immigration restrictions.

The problem is that republicans already screwed us here by nominating Romney. With either Romney or Obama, we are screwed on federal enforcement of immigration.

This is why it was so important for conservatives to get behind Santorum. Since they didn’t they screwed themselves in the foot, not just for today, but at least for the next four years.

[PhilosopherStone1000]

Absolutely.

And I believe that SCOTUS, if they ever hear a case regarding sanctuary cities, would vote to strike down those sanctuary laws as unconstitutional.

Can’t, at the moment, think of a situation where a SCOTUS case would arise, but it could happen.

[kabar]

From Standing with AZ prior to the decision:

•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. And it was.

[NELSON111]

Immigration, is as always, a federal mandate.

I agree. This was the right decision. Securing the borders is a federal issue...not a state issue. If the people are pissed off at illegal immigration they need to change the leadership (ALL of it...RINO's included) in DC.

[wiggen]

Great point

[butterdezillion]

I’m afraid Roberts is compromised. I wanted it to not be true.

[Williams]

Ginzburg said there would be sharp disagreement in general not on healthcare, and we just got slaughtered on an Arizona law everyone thought would be upheld.

The “sharp disagreement” is Justice Scalia in dissent, and Ginzburg was very smug when she made her comment.

[RavenATB]

Yep...sry/thanks.

[Fawn]

Who said: “ A country without borders is no country at all”.

[Servant of the Cross]

Actually it's my understanding that CJ Roberts joining the majority on Arizona was more tactical than a reflection of his actual views. If he would have joined Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. The court would have split 4-4 (Kagan recused) and the 9th circuit ruling striking down ALL of the Arizona law would have stood. So in joining with the majority he got Arizona 1/4 of a loaf, which I suppose is better than nothing.

What you said! This makes the most sense of any analysis on this that I've read yet.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

Arizona can apply the “check your papers” provision.

Si Senior, we're going to have to "check your papers". You wait right here and I'll be back in...about 5 years.

[Perdogg]

Do you really believe this?

[kabar]

The 1996 Immigration Act already makes sanctuary cities illegal. The federal government is not enforcing existing laws period.

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) states the following without equivocation:

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

— Section 642 (a) of IIRIRA, 1996, and Section 5434 of the Welfare Reform Act 1996; extended 2003

[Shadowfax]

Oh dear Lord....

I didn’t think that the Arizona law would be upheld, and while I wish it were, I can see the SC’s point. If we want strong immigration law and regulation, we need to elect leaders who will implement that direction. Not have the states pass immigration laws that may be in violation of federal law.

However, nothing that happened today made me more or less pessimistic about the ruling on healthcare.