Skip to comments.Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
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.
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.
What sources did Jake Tapper hear it from??
The States have the right to deport illegals.
Arizona,Texas etc. should secede.
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.
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?
We still have Rubio
Also ignore the fact that Reagan put Kennedy on the court.
WAKE UP PEOPLE THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA TWISTS THE TRUTH.
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.
5-4 wasn’t possible.
Kagan was recused.
It was 5-3
Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
The most controversial portion of the bill was upheld. AZ can check immigration status at traffic stops etc.
Sue Obama and bring Obama and his executive order giving Amnesty to illegals before the Supreme Court.
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.
LoL, indeed. And SDO. How could that be?
“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.
That is correct. However, the 9th Circuit is no ordinary court.
I should make clear my post is a reference, not so much this particular ruling, but mostly IF ObamaCare is passed.
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?
“Imagine if the Feds got violent against its own, otherwise law abiding, citizens.”
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.
We have to do something so :Sue Obama and bring Obama and his executive order giving Amnesty to illegals before the Supreme Court.
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.”
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!
The story you refer to is about 6 weeks old.
Hopefully Arizona already has it written up and can move on it immediately.
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. ... Todays opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuits injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizonas law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereigns 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 Executives invocation of foreign-affairs considerations here. Though it may upset foreign powersand even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powersthe 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 Nations 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 fearand what Arizona and the States that support it fearis that federal policies of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evileffects of illegal immigration that the Courts 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 Congresss failure to pass the Administrations 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 Executives refusal to enforce the Nations 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 Courts holding? Todays judgment surely fails that test.
"Now, imagine a provisionperhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clausewhich 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.
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.)
” We still have Rubio “
I’ll GIT you fer that : )
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.
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.
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.
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.
A unanimous ruling against Obama is bad?
I couldnt help myself
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.
Does this mean cities cannot deem/legislate themselves sanctuary cities...and, enforce such "laws"?
Please see my latest post, #233.
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.
All up to the feds and whether or not they decide to act on it. I won’t hold my breath:(
Then SCOTUS decision today was correct.
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?
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.
I think you're probably correct.
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...
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.
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.
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?
That sounds like 14th problems.