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

Skip to comments.

Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
Fox News Channel (link added) ^ | 6/25/12 | Staff

Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice

SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: arizona; fastandfurious; illegals; immigration; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; scotusarizonalaw; scotusimmigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351 next last
To: RIghtwardHo; All

None of the remarks posted seem to understand any of this ruling and are used as an excuse to bash the Court, Bush and just sound stupid.


201 posted on 06/25/2012 9:26:06 AM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Belle22

What sources did Jake Tapper hear it from??


202 posted on 06/25/2012 9:27:10 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Give the Government an inch and they will want more and more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

The States have the right to deport illegals.

Arizona,Texas etc. should secede.


203 posted on 06/25/2012 9:27:16 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scram2

And I’ll keep asking: Who is going to deport them?

Say a 29 year old illegal college student is working part time as a mule. He gets pulled over for a broken tail light and there are 5 others in the car. His status is checked and it’s determined he is here illegally. But, since he’s under 30 he can’t be deported. The other five illegals in the car? It’s not their car so they haven’t broken the law so, therefore, their status isn’t even checked.


204 posted on 06/25/2012 9:28:26 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Nobody is reaming either Roberts or Bush for the one part that all the justices agreed to send back to the 9th Circuit.

What’s at issue is the other 3/4ths of the law, that Roberts voted with the majority on - against Scalie, Alito, and Thomas.

If the 1/4th that got sent back to the 9th Circuit was unanimous then it was going to be that decision regardless of whether the other 3/4ths were thrown out or not. So Roberts had no strategic reason to side with the liberal justices.

So why did he?


205 posted on 06/25/2012 9:28:34 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker
RE :”Not looking good for us.

We still have Rubio

206 posted on 06/25/2012 9:28:53 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob; All

Also ignore the fact that Reagan put Kennedy on the court.


207 posted on 06/25/2012 9:28:53 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Give the Government an inch and they will want more and more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
THEY ONLY STRUCK DOWN WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING FEDERAL LAW.

WAKE UP PEOPLE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA TWISTS THE TRUTH.

208 posted on 06/25/2012 9:29:10 AM PDT by Spunky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Vote is public.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.


209 posted on 06/25/2012 9:29:19 AM PDT by George189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: animal172

5-4 wasn’t possible.

Kagan was recused.

It was 5-3

Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

vs.

Scalia, Alito and Thomas.


210 posted on 06/25/2012 9:29:26 AM PDT by George189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

The most controversial portion of the bill was upheld. AZ can check immigration status at traffic stops etc.


211 posted on 06/25/2012 9:29:32 AM PDT by Jake8898
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

Sue Obama and bring Obama and his executive order giving Amnesty to illegals before the Supreme Court.


212 posted on 06/25/2012 9:32:51 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Do you think corporations would stop taking taxes out of your paycheck?


In away they have been..less workers means less taxes collected.
This is one of the main reasons Socialism doesn’t work in America.
Eventually, they defund themselves.
Unfortunately they destroy, or at best make it very difficult, what was a very savable country in the process.
Otherwise,I think if things got bad enough.Once Obamacare kicks in will be the breaking point.
Few want to return to surfdom or at least they wont when they find that is where the present path leads.


213 posted on 06/25/2012 9:33:27 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

LoL, indeed. And SDO. How could that be?


214 posted on 06/25/2012 9:34:24 AM PDT by arrogantsob (Obama must Go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“Then ICE simply lets them go, “Catch and Release”. “

The political effect of this though is huge. Arizona will have a count of folks caught and released. Will have numbers and can publicize them. This stuff has been operating with the grubs under the rocks for years.


215 posted on 06/25/2012 9:35:11 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: scram2

That is correct. However, the 9th Circuit is no ordinary court.


216 posted on 06/25/2012 9:35:19 AM PDT by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Leep

I should make clear my post is a reference, not so much this particular ruling, but mostly IF ObamaCare is passed.


217 posted on 06/25/2012 9:36:39 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

He ignores Congress. And Congress does nothing. What makes anyone think that the Executive Branch will ever pay attention to what an individual sues them about, even if the suit went all the way to SCOTUS?


218 posted on 06/25/2012 9:37:58 AM PDT by Pecos (Constitution? Oh, you mean that thing we USED to have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Leep

“Imagine if the Feds got violent against its own, otherwise law abiding, citizens.”

****

If.. ?

I’ve obviously been reading newspapers and modern history books that are very different from yours for the last few decades.

The Fed has been making war on its own citizens from the time they locked the first person up over a blatantly unconstitutional firearms law at the very least.

If you’re going to argue that “otherwise law abiding” means knuckling under every time the government arrests someone using laws they were never intended to have the authority to make or sets people up using false accusations and entrapment etc (Waco and Ruby Ridge, for starters) you’re living in a police state already.

The guys who have snapped at the outrage of it all and fought back even in small ways have been publicly condemned and disavowed by the vast majority conservatives.


219 posted on 06/25/2012 9:42:37 AM PDT by gzzimlich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Judge Andrew Napolitano gave his analysis on Fox. The judge stated that the heart and soul of the Arizona law was struck down. Only feds may enforce immigration laws.
On the status ruling it is unclear. Difference in a police officer checking to “see if they are wanted” vs “see if they are illegal”
If an officer stops someone for a DUI or jaywalking...the right to check status will probably end up in courts. Sad day for America.
220 posted on 06/25/2012 9:47:46 AM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pecos

We have to do something so :Sue Obama and bring Obama and his executive order giving Amnesty to illegals before the Supreme Court.


221 posted on 06/25/2012 9:52:25 AM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1

And the cop can only check the driver’s status. Nobody else in the car were breaking any laws unless the cop searches them and finds drugs.

I predict most AZ cops will not be saying “Papers, please.”


222 posted on 06/25/2012 9:52:47 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
I see your point so let me put it another way...

If people who are otherwise against illegal immigration simply vote for the same old enablers, such as Obama, then they get what they deserve. The rest of us, not so much.

Still, what do we do if, after all our efforts, we come up short politically and lose? We might not deserve the fate of the democrats having a 50 year majority of the electorate that now counts illegals as newly minted voting citizens, but since those who interpret the US Constitution are against us, politics are our only way out.

I'm not trying to be dopey, but I am very pessimistic!

223 posted on 06/25/2012 9:55:09 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Belle22

The story you refer to is about 6 weeks old.


224 posted on 06/25/2012 9:57:06 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: kidd
"Now Arizona should sue the Federal government for failure to enforce immigration laws and the associated costs"

Absolutely.

Hopefully Arizona already has it written up and can move on it immediately.

225 posted on 06/25/2012 10:00:17 AM PDT by cookcounty ("We're all born idiots, and we only get over that condition as we get less young." -J Goldberg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
"The Constitution is not even close to ambiguous on this issue, states do NOT have the right to institute their own policies on immigration or naturalization just as they cannot enact treaties with foreign nations outside of the wishes of the federal government.

The states may not institute their own policies with regard to naturalization and immigration, but THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION HERE. The question is whether within ths immigration and naturalization system the federal government has instituted whether the state has the right to protect it sovereignity and its citizens. The only specification in the Constiution is that states must treat CITIZENS from the several states alike (and the Federal government does have a right to determine citizenship). But the states are SOVEREIGN states (and there is that little thing in the Constitution about powers not expressly granted to the Feds devolve to the states or the people.)

I was starting to agree with the majority decision until I read Scalia's informed, deeply considered and absolute dissent. Some quotes from Scalia:

"The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” ... Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.

As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.

"We are not talking here about a federal law prohibiting the States from regulating bubble-gum advertising, or even the construction of nuclear plants. We are talking about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude. Like elimination of the States’ other inherent sovereign power, immunity from suit, elimina. tion of the States’ sovereign power to exclude requires that “Congress . . . unequivocally expres[s] its intent to abrogate,” ... Implicit “field preemption” will not do.

"Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.Four years ago, for example, the Government importuned us to interfere with thoroughly constitutional state judicial procedures in the criminal trial of foreign nationals because the international community, and even an opinion of the International Court of Justice, disapproved them. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491 (2008). We rejected that request, as we should reject the Executive’s invocation of foreign-affairs considerations here. Though it may upset foreign powers—and even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers—the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.

“[T]he State is not inhibited from making the nationalpurposes its own purposes to the extent of exerting its police power to prevent its own citizens from obstructingthe accomplishment of such purposes.” ... Much more is that so when, as here, the State is protecting its own interest, the integrity of its borders. And we have said that explicitly with regard to illegal immigration: “Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law,and whose numbers might have a discernible impact ontraditional state concerns.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).

"What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that “federal policies” of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evileffects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition.

"The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thingto do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhapsit is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

"Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test.

"Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

This court has unconstitutionally struck down the rights of states to protect themselves, even within the confines of federal law. The states must operate within Federal law, but the existence of a federal law SHOULD NOT prohibit the states from defending their sovereignty within the boundaries of federal law. We are moving closer and closer to proving the anti-federalists were right in fearing a central federal government that usurped the rights of the states.

226 posted on 06/25/2012 10:03:18 AM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Jay Sekulow said this was a big loss for Obama. (My synopsis of 3 parts ruled against: The parts struck down are already covered by federal law, so the spin on this will be wrong.)


227 posted on 06/25/2012 10:04:33 AM PDT by PghBaldy (I eagerly await the next news about the struggles of Elizabeth Sacheen Littlefeather Warren.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

” We still have Rubio “

I’ll GIT you fer that : )


228 posted on 06/25/2012 10:05:31 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

Cop stops a driver who is swerving all over the road and clearly drunk. The controversy or “unclear” aspect of the law is whether or not the officer should check the drivers status. Even if the person can’t speak English. It will be cases such as this that end up in court.
125 pages which are unclear.


229 posted on 06/25/2012 10:05:31 AM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Jake8898

So what? The driver and a crew of illegals (better - foreign nationals) can say yup we are from Mexico, Guatemala, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Then gibe the officer a Bronx cheer and say chi**-te fuzz you can’t do anything about it. Sheesh.


230 posted on 06/25/2012 10:05:47 AM PDT by epluribus_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Jay Sekulow ‏@JaySekulow #SCOTUS upholds key provision of #SB1070 http://bit.ly/Mk1kcb Discussing on #FoxNews at 1:30pm & w/ @SeanHannity at 9pm ET

http://twitter.com/#!/JaySekulow

231 posted on 06/25/2012 10:06:49 AM PDT by PghBaldy (I eagerly await the next news about the struggles of Elizabeth Sacheen Littlefeather Warren.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: redgolum
"Because if the ruling is against state rights, and for federal power, the inclination may be to rule the same way for health care.

That occurred to me at first, but the huge difference (even for this court) is that immigration has traditionally been an area of federal jurisdiction. It's power in health care has never been as great.

232 posted on 06/25/2012 10:06:58 AM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: pabianice; dfwgator; C19fan; redgolum; perfect_rovian_storm; hitchwolf; dalebert

When I posted about the unanimous ruling, I had just heard that from good sources. But in fact apparently the provision they upheld WAS unanimous but apparently not so, the other provisions. Which was not covered by the talk radio source I cited.

I still don’t know the exact breakdown, but have subsequently heard that ONLY that upheld provision was unanimous.

A split decision on a state’s right to legislate in this area is disappointing, but not surprising.

My guess is some of the justices that joined to strike down the provisions that made immigration crimes into state crimes whereas they have been federal crimes, were worried about opening a pandora’s box of challenges re: state laws attempting to mirror federal laws on the same issues.

Still don’t know how the votes exactly broke down, because haven’t yet heard a talk radio source say. Rush mentioned Kennedy and Roberts joining with libs, however, which makes me think the vote was them plus Sotomayor, Breyer, and RBG...Kagan having recused.

Is that correct? Was it 5-4 on the AZ mirror laws provisions being struck?
(Many of you have posted to me, which I haven’t had time to read yet, so if this was already revealed, thanks for the info.)

My apologies for misunderstanding the difference in unanimous on the upheld provision and not on the struck ones, but that part was not covered on Beck, by Sekulow.

Brewer and AZ AG say it’s an important win.

Rush seems to be saying “muddled”.

He is thrilled with the Montana decision and cites Pelosi going nuts...again.

Rush now referencing Scalia’s dissent on AZ’s struck mirror law provisions...

Says AZ is either a sovereign entity or not...”I dissent”.

Make no mistake, in a just world/system ALL of AZ would be upheld, but methinks some of them were worried about opening that pandora’s box...

And for ALL of you who attack Bush because of Roberts, I presume Alito dissented? Also a Bush appointee.

I presume ALL of you know Kennedy was appointed by Reagan?

I disagree with W when called for. I never did see reason behind gratuitous, senseless and savage attacks and this would be one.


233 posted on 06/25/2012 10:07:50 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

A unanimous ruling against Obama is bad?


234 posted on 06/25/2012 10:08:26 AM PDT by PghBaldy (I eagerly await the next news about the struggles of Elizabeth Sacheen Littlefeather Warren.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

LOL :)

I couldnt help myself


235 posted on 06/25/2012 10:08:36 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeWashingtonsGhost
"I see this as a victory for the most part. ALL of the Justices upheld that the police have the right to check the immigration status of those they stop.

No they didn't - read the decision. They remanded the case because they could not rule in the theoretical on a policy that has not been implemented, and specified ways it COULD be implemented and pass constitutional muster (I suspect that was Roberts' contribution), but that is a LONG way from upholding the law.

236 posted on 06/25/2012 10:10:47 AM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1
The Judge is usually spot on.

Does this mean cities cannot deem/legislate themselves sanctuary cities...and, enforce such "laws"?

237 posted on 06/25/2012 10:12:14 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Please see my latest post, #233.

Thanks.


238 posted on 06/25/2012 10:15:40 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty

Do you have any links to substantiate that Obama was sworn in using a Koran? I have heard it a bunch of times, but never pursued it. Using Snopes or Wikipedia is useless, because neither of them can be trusted in political matters especially when it comes to liberals. (I use both as a tool to buttress non-political questions of truth, but wouldn’t trust either of them further than I could throw them.

Just curious, because I really would like to know for sure.


239 posted on 06/25/2012 10:21:14 AM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

All up to the feds and whether or not they decide to act on it. I won’t hold my breath:(


240 posted on 06/25/2012 10:21:36 AM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

ping


241 posted on 06/25/2012 10:23:13 AM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Then SCOTUS decision today was correct.


242 posted on 06/25/2012 10:31:21 AM PDT by Halls (Jesus is my Lord and Savior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland

I keep hearing that section 2B has been “handed back to the 9th circuit”

But after reading parts of the opinion, I didn’t see that. What I did see in the SCOTUS opinion was that this matter has to be settled at the state court level, after demonstration that it will or will not result in extended detention to perform an immigration check.

IOW - lets give this a try and see how it goes.

Where does it say that this is going back to the 9th circuit?


243 posted on 06/25/2012 10:32:14 AM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
I was on a thread recently about a writer who wrote an article covering his opinion on the Rush Limbaugh statements regarding the runner who helped a fellow runner to cross the finish line. The author wrote a vitriolic commentary about Limbaugh, then apparently got bombarded with so many negative emails that he felt compelled to describe why he is a conservative, and whined about being called a liberal. (yeah, right)

Thread was at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2894102/posts

Anyway, the key point I was making was, when this guy laid out a bunch of things that he used to buttress his claim to being a conservative, the thing that stuck out me was this: "...I believe Congress as it is organized under the Constitution (i.e. both houses being elected on solely geographic criteria) is no longer the best-suited body to represent the diversity of people in the United States..."

What is happening in Arizona is a apt illustration of why they are SO wrong, the desires of brain dead liberals like this guy to rewrite the Constitution to make it less amenable to States needs. (As if it isn't already less amenable that it should be right now.)

People in Washington D.C. or New York don't have the same issues as people in southern Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. They REALLY, REALLY don't when it comes to immigration and the burden it places on a community. This is PRECISELY why the founders wanted states rights, and tried to write the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government...because one size doesn't fit all.

But ALL liberals have this in common: They STRIVE for one-size-fits-all approaches.

244 posted on 06/25/2012 10:40:26 AM PDT by rlmorel ("The safest road to Hell is the gradual one." Screwtape (C.S. Lewis))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
The correct path would have been to file a law suit in federal court against ICE and the Obama Administration for failing to enforce immigration laws with due diligence.

I think you're probably correct.

245 posted on 06/25/2012 10:40:37 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: All

Um, having skimmed the thread, I did not see anyone draw this conclusion.

The USSC sent back the one provision of the law that has not been put into force yet. It is not a victory or defeat for either side. The court told them that IF they wanted to enforce the law, that if they did it in a certain way, that it MAY be constitutional.

But, by the time it gets back to the USSC, the court make-up may be different.

IF the court is going to be consistent, that may signal a position on the Affordable Care Act ruling. Since the provisions have not gone into effect, and no one can show that they were penalized for not buying coverage, it gives the court an out before the election...


246 posted on 06/25/2012 10:41:33 AM PDT by ace2u_in_MD (You missed something...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; Liz; AuntB; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; ...
RE :”This sounds like a lazy state legislature that doesn't much care for the 9th and 10th in this regard.
If their law really did merely rubber-stamp “whatever federal alien-registration laws” might be in effect, then the State would be committing itself to enforce (instead of ICE, DHS) whatever immigration registration Congress hands down.
If that is the intent, then as others have posted, AZ law enforcement could’ve been directed to do same and then instead sued the feds to pay for it. No state legislation needed to bind their hands.

Another way to approach it is to increase penalties for driving without a valid license and for document fraud, and other crimes and infractions that are popular with illegals.
Public transportation is a bigger problem but could be improved by selling passes at a discount to those who show a valid ID in person, making those without a valid ID pay more. Or better yet, make a valid ID a requirement to use public transporation for safety reasons.

Trying to enforce Federal immigration law without the Feds cooperation can cause difficulties.

247 posted on 06/25/2012 10:46:58 AM PDT by sickoflibs (Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

Don’t think you can drawn any conclusions about the health care case.

If you followed the argument, this wasn’t a huge surprise. Even in the argument Roberts indicated he had problems with AZ’s law and telegraphed the decision today.

Here’s a relevant part of him talking with AZ’s lawyer:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Counsel, maybe it’s a good time to talk about some of the other sections, in particular Section 5(C).
Now, that does seem to expand beyond the Federal government’s determination about the types of sanctions that should govern the employment relationship.
You talk about supply and demand. The Federal government, of course, prohibits the employment, but it also imposes sanctions with respect to application for work. And the state of Arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions.

So, you see him talking about how one of the provisions “expand beyond” and impose “significantly greater” sanctions. You can tell from that that he was skeptical about AZ’s argument on Sec 5. In other parts he says similar things about Sec 3. If you read the argument he’s constantly distinguishing between Sec 2 and the other provisions.

Basically reading the argument his vote wasn’t a big surprise.

OTOH, if you read the health care argument he was very skeptical of the mandate and asked many pointed questions of the govt.

On the severability issue, it’s a bit more muddled.

but I’d be surprised if Roberts voted to uphold the mandate.


248 posted on 06/25/2012 10:50:54 AM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kidd
You are correct - it is not remanded to the Ninth Circus, but sent back to state court:

The exact language of the holding:

The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6of S. B. 1070 are preempted. It was improper, however, to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The important point (to me) is that 2B is not upheld - the SCOTUS has more or less said "Come back after it has developed a judicial history."

But it will, inevitably, end back in the Ninth Circus and is there any doubt how they will rule?

249 posted on 06/25/2012 10:51:33 AM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Public transportation is a bigger problem but could be improved by selling passes at a discount to those who show a valid ID in person, making those without a valid ID pay more. Or better yet, make a valid ID a requirement to use public transporation for safety reasons.

That sounds like 14th problems.

250 posted on 06/25/2012 10:57:26 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 351 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