PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, upholds key provision



txradioguy
06-25-2012, 10:52 AM
http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/ScotusArizona_20120625_103854.jpg

The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld a key provision.

The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.

Other provisions, though, were struck down.

The federal government claimed the law encroached on its authority to enforce immigration law.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-most-arizona-immigration-law-upholds-key-provision/

Janice
06-25-2012, 11:03 AM
So much for federalism ...

Wibbins
06-25-2012, 12:02 PM
Grrr, I read supreme court strikes down and I was happy, then I came here and am now disappointed :blue: I was hoping it was for ppaca

Unreconstructed Reb
06-25-2012, 12:10 PM
"In a statement Monday, Brewer hailed the decision as a "victory for the rule of law" -- in reference to the one provision that was upheld. She indicated the state would move to carry out the law, even without the three other planks."

Rockntractor
06-25-2012, 12:20 PM
This may not be a good sign...........

SaintLouieWoman
06-25-2012, 12:30 PM
This may not be a good sign...........

That's what I was thinking. I had read that Obama's minions were really pushing the Supremes on the health care ruling. It seemed strange that the announcement of it has been delayed.

Rockntractor
06-25-2012, 12:38 PM
That's what I was thinking. I had read that Obama's minions were really pushing the Supremes on the health care ruling. It seemed strange that the announcement of it has been delayed.

It is either constitutional or it isn't, the decision should not be effected by arm twisting or influence from the white house or any other branch of government.

linda22003
06-25-2012, 12:55 PM
That's what I was thinking. I had read that Obama's minions were really pushing the Supremes on the health care ruling. It seemed strange that the announcement of it has been delayed.

The highest profile cases usually come out right at the end of the term, and this is the highest profile one I can remember in many years.

Janice
06-25-2012, 02:28 PM
Justice Antonin Scalia read an angry dissent from the bench, saying he would have upheld the entire Arizona law. It "boggles the mind" that the president might decline to enforce federal immigration law, Scalia said in apparent reference to Obama's June 15 executive order stopping deportation for certain young people in the United States illegally.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSBRE85O0Q520120625)

The decision this morning begs the question ... why call states ... states? Or sovereign, I should say. I have more to add but I better keep my powder dry here.

Btw... Justice John Roberts sided with the left on this one.

Wait till the tea party hits November folks. This is not over.

ThinkingBig
06-25-2012, 03:29 PM
I had read that Obama's minions were really pushing the Supremes on the health care ruling.

Huh?

How do employees of the executive branch 'push' Supreme Court justices? -- SCOTUS is extremely insulated. Thankfully.

Janice
06-25-2012, 04:29 PM
Huh?

How do employees of the executive branch 'push' Supreme Court justices? -- SCOTUS is extremely insulated. Thankfully.

What is this? Musical chairs?

So the Judicial branch rules that the Executive Branch can choose to NOT enforce the laws passed by the Legislative branch?

Hawkgirl
06-25-2012, 06:20 PM
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSBRE85O0Q520120625)



Btw... Justice John Roberts sided with the left on this one.



He didn't want to side with the right on BOTH the Immigration law AND the Healthcare law, the libs would call him bias. :evil-grin:
I predict Justice Roberts striking down the healthcare law.

marinejcksn
06-25-2012, 08:56 PM
Another example of why this moronic coot Kennedy is most likely going to rule in favor of Obamacare. Ronnie's poorest decision was appointing this idiot who bases his opinions on what he had for breakfast that morning. :mad-new:

Elspeth
06-25-2012, 09:03 PM
Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SdyQcyVCSs&feature=player_embedded

fettpett
06-25-2012, 10:12 PM
Well it should never have gone to a lower court. The SCOTUS is the only court, Constitutionally, to hear cases between the States and Federal Government.

Rockntractor
06-25-2012, 10:13 PM
Another example of why this moronic coot Kennedy is most likely going to rule in favor of Obamacare. Ronnie's poorest decision was appointing this idiot who bases his opinions on what he had for breakfast that morning. :mad-new:

There is a lot of truth in that statement and the more I read about this the more it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

NJCardFan
06-26-2012, 12:09 AM
How can the SC rule on the constitutionality of something without a frame of reference to go on? For example, when Miranda vs. State of Arizona was going through it's paces, the SC had the facts of the case to rule on as well as other cases to measure this one on. In this case, IMO it's difficult to deem something unconstitutional when there isn't any case law to contradict this. I can see if someone was stopped "while having ice cream with their children" and forced to show immigration status but there is nothing of the kind going on. All Arizona was doing was reaffirming federal law here, nothing more.

Janice
06-26-2012, 03:45 AM
The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy held that immigration law -- including the decision not to enforce the law -- is an exclusive area of federal jurisdiction?

So I guess when Arizona joined the union, it ceded its right to police its own borders? Ok, conversely I suppose we can expect to see suits brought against sanctuary cities and sanctuary states since the Feds now hold minion on immigration enforcement, not states , not counties and not cities. Can we not? This ruling could open doors the miscreants on the left may rue.

txradioguy
06-26-2012, 08:01 AM
How can the SC rule on the constitutionality of something without a frame of reference to go on? For example, when Miranda vs. State of Arizona was going through it's paces, the SC had the facts of the case to rule on as well as other cases to measure this one on. In this case, IMO it's difficult to deem something unconstitutional when there isn't any case law to contradict this. I can see if someone was stopped "while having ice cream with their children" and forced to show immigration status but there is nothing of the kind going on. All Arizona was doing was reaffirming federal law here, nothing more.

The Feds used the 1941 case of Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) to argue that SB 1070 was unconstitutional...even though the Hines case had nothing to do with securing the border.

For some odd reason the Justices thgought the former was relavent to the latter.

States make laws all the time that mirror their Federal counterparts. That's exactly what SB 1070 was doing.

But the Justices declared that only the Feds can make immigration policy...why...I'm not sure...and basically gave Obama and Big Sis the greenlight to give the middle finger to Federal law and grant blanket immunity like they've been doing. Only now when someone complains...they'll shove yesterdays ruling in the states collective faces.

txradioguy
06-26-2012, 08:05 AM
The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy held that immigration law -- including the decision not to enforce the law -- is an exclusive area of federal jurisdiction?

So I guess when Arizona joined the union, it ceded its right to police its own borders? Ok, conversely I suppose we can expect to see suits brought against sanctuary cities and sanctuary states since the Feds now hold minion on immigration enforcement, not states , not counties and not cities. Can we not? This ruling could open doors the miscreants on the left may rue.

I don't forsee this AG or this administration doing that. In fact I'd expect them to actually defend sanctuary cities and states from the lawsuits that the SCOTUS has opened them up for.

txradioguy
06-26-2012, 08:08 AM
Huh?

How do employees of the executive branch 'push' Supreme Court justices? -- SCOTUS is extremely insulated. Thankfully.

I guess your head has been crammed so far up your ass that you missed the President daring the SCOTUS to strike down the ACA.

Which means you'vbe missed the veiled threats by the Libtard Congress Critters that the SCOTUS better not strike down this law.

:rolleyes:

Janice
06-26-2012, 08:20 AM
I don't forsee this AG or this administration doing that. In fact I'd expect them to actually defend sanctuary cities and states from the lawsuits that the SCOTUS has opened them up for.

No, my point was that WE (tea party, conservatives or whoever) will have grounds to demand the dissolution of these "sanctuaries". Yes the feds will defend. But the states have no standing now.

txradioguy
06-26-2012, 08:30 AM
No, my point was that WE (tea party, conservatives or whoever) will have grounds to demand the dissolution of these "sanctuaries". Yes the feds will defend. But the states have no standing now.

Yes we have the grounds...and I think we should...start with NY and CA. But I'm of the belief that the Feds will find some way to shut it down...harass those that file the lawsuit and counter sue...in essence do anything they can to silence and strong arm anyone who dares to do this. Not to mention it would feed the meme that the TEA Part is "racist".

I wish that we had someone in the Congress that had the spine to now say..."if you're a sanctuary city or state and you continue to have this policy...we'll withhold (insert program) federal dollars from your state until you comply with federal law.".

Janice
06-26-2012, 09:59 AM
I wish that we had someone in the Congress that had the spine to now say..."if you're a sanctuary city or state and you continue to have this policy...we'll withhold (insert program) federal dollars from your state until you comply with federal law.".

With a Dem majority running the Senate and Weasels running the House the odds are slim to none.

Gina
06-26-2012, 10:03 AM
Yes we have the grounds...and I think we should...start with NY and CA. But I'm of the belief that the Feds will find some way to shut it down...harass those that file the lawsuit and counter sue...in essence do anything they can to silence and strong arm anyone who dares to do this. Not to mention it would feed the meme that the TEA Part is "racist".

I wish that we had someone in the Congress that had the spine to now say..."if you're a sanctuary city or state and you continue to have this policy...we'll withhold (insert program) federal dollars from your state until you comply with federal law.".
It would be nice, but the problem is that the Obama administration is saying some federal laws don't matter, so the statement threatening federal dollars would be meaningless. :apologetic:

Janice
06-26-2012, 10:16 AM
It would be nice, but the problem is that the Obama administration is saying some federal laws don't matter, so the statement threatening federal dollars would be meaningless. :apologetic:

Yeah, too bad we cant find more pubs with the cojones Arizonas governor has for congress. Are they all metrosexuals or prom queens on crapital hill now? Or are they just a bunch of spineless power hungry weasels? (Rhetorical question of course)

noonwitch
06-27-2012, 11:28 AM
So, state officials can ask about immigration status if they have another reason for stopping an individual. But enforcement of immigration issues remains federal. So if the Arizona officials notify the INS about someone who they have ascertained is an illegal immigrant, the INS can still say they are not prosecuting the case.


It's a pretty confusing ruling.

ThinkingBig
06-28-2012, 10:51 AM
http://liburuak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/yay.gif?w=500

It was a good ruling.


AZ coming back into the fold of righteousness and reason. And kick that evil hag governor to the curb.

txradioguy
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
It was a good ruling.


AZ coming back into the fold of righteousness and reason. And kick that evil hag governor to the curb.

GDIAF