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.
ping
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.
OK Bushites remind us again how we should be on our knees in awe for the Gift of Roberts?
There is no hope of ObamaCare being undone. This decision was an unmitigated expansion of Federal power.
It was a typo. Guess I need to proof read my posts. I actually meant 5-3.
Yes, but isn't federal sovereignty in regard to this issue already well-established by the Constitution and SC precedent? Didn't Arizona take pains to ensure that there was no conflict with federal law? Is he advocating a system of parallel state laws mirroring federal laws? Lack of enforcement of federal law is at the root of the illegal invasion. Obama refuses to enforce federal law.
Sure he is. There is nothing Conservative about expanding Federal Power, in contradiction of existing law no less.
I predicted that ObamaCare would be upheld all along, now I am sure of it.
I am resigned to the fact that our Republic is indeed dead.
Actually, Key Part of Arizona Law Upheld
By John Fonte
June 25, 2012 1:00 P.M.
The crucial point in Mark Krikorian’s post on the Supreme Court’s Arizona immigration ruling is exactly right — “the core of the law was upheld.” According to the New York Times (“Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law,”) “the court was unanimous” on allowing police to check the immigration status of “people they stop and suspect are not in the United States legally.”
The Obama administration argued vigorously against the law, and particularly against the provision of the right of police to check the legal status of people that they come into contact with on routine stops, who they have reason to believe are not in the country legally. The court struck down 5–3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting, Kagan recused) other provisions in the law that make it against Arizona state law for illegal immigrants to apply for a job or fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the U.S. legally. These provisions are, according to the court majority, preempted by federal law. Clearly, these other provisions seem rather minor compared to the police check on immigration status, which was upheld, I repeat, unanimously. The Washington Post (“Supreme Court rejects much of Arizona immigration law”) calls the court ruling a “partial victory” for the Obama administration. It looks more like a defeat for Obama and a win for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and immigration enforcement.
So then it was Roberts siding with "the federales can choose what laws it wants to enforce wherever and whenever" liberal wing of the court that undermined the conservative wing and the Constitution. Who would have guessed???? and what more surprises does Roberts have for us????
Yes, basically we need an administration willing to make their federal agency ICE enforce the federal laws already on the books.
The police checks were definitely the hot button issue that got this to SCOTUS in the first place.
I am not sure it will. I think the individual mandate will be overthrown.
And if Roberts SHOULD be found not to be a conservative, we have ANOTHER thing to thank Bush II for. Never understood why he didn’t give ot Scalia. But then Bush II, like his father before him, was neither a conservative, nor friendly to consrvative clauses. I remeber who he WANTED to appoint to the SCOTUS and only backed off because WE pressured him.
But I wouldn’t be so quick to judge here. There are analyses indicating that the actual decision was far from a victory for Obama.
He sure has a funny way of showing it.
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.