Posted on 04/25/2012 12:21:28 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer talks to reporters in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, April 25, 2012, after the nation’s highest court heard arguments over Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law, known as S.B. 1070.(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
>Obama loses the election but Justice Kennedy has a heart attack at the end of November so then Obama claims that to save the country he will recess appointment himself to that lifetime position and will be deemed resigned by doing it.
At that point I think all but the most brainwashed would say “What the hell!?”
Or at least I hope they would.
But Obama’s metality is just what he said....the elected reps of the people back ME up...and the same story unfolds...with him saying the court is purely political....
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
Funny but a SCOTUS recess appointment would expire just like any other. He’d have a year tops. And if it’s a Republican Congress in 2013 I think it could immediately adjourn thus ending the appointment.
I don’t know about the constitutionality of him appointing himself but he could resign and have Biden appoint him and unfortunately that would be constitutional
>Funny but a SCOTUS recess appointment would expire just like any other.
I’m not sure that’s the case; but in any event there’s still impeachment for SCOTUS Justices.
>He’d have a year tops. And if it’s a Republican Congress in 2013 I think it could immediately adjourn thus ending the appointment.
>I don’t know about the constitutionality of him appointing himself but he could resign and have Biden appoint him and unfortunately that would be constitutional
I would hate to see an electorate, or a Congress, that would, take it laying down... though the current Congress has been incredibly disappointing on repudiating anything in this administration. (ex. Fast and Furious)
OneWingedShark: I’m not sure that’s the case
I assure you it is. Remember EVERY federal judge serves the same "during good Behavior" (aka lifetime unless impeached and removed) term, Supreme Court is not special in that regard.
Need to frame this.
Thanks Brother, if I knew for sure that a FedEx overnight delivery would actually get it into the hands of Chief Justice Roberts, I’d pop for the expense today.
Unfortunately the clerks would probably toss it in File 13 as if it never existed.
” Thanks Brother, if I knew for sure that a FedEx overnight delivery would actually get it into the hands of Chief Justice Roberts, I’d pop for the expense today.”
Best money ever spent.
A recess appointment to SCOTUS indeed would be exactly the same as for any other recess appointment. When John Jay resigned as Chief Justice in July 1795, the Senate was in recess, so President Washington made a recess appointment of John Rutledge (a former SCOTUS Justice) as the new Chief Justice. Rutledge served until he resigned in December of 1795 following the Senate’s rejection of his nomination; had Rutledge not resigned, his recess appointment would have expired anyhow on June 1, 1796 (when the Senate session ended). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_rutledge
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.