That case was settled 9-0, overturning a 9th circuit opinion.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423
Funny, I haven’t heard this cited in the media. Then again, I must admit I don’t pay as much attention to broadcast and print news as I used to.
Megyn Kelly talked about this ruling on O’Reilly tonight. Quite a surprise, but if it clearly applies to all state and local jurisdictions, I wonder why a new Arizona law was even necessary?
Good For “Megyn”...
I did not see the show tonight...just happen to come across This PR from 2005.
WHAT Could BE MORE CLEAR?
It is harsher than the AZ law...because it says they do NOT have to be stopped for something else, BEFORE being asked about their Immigration status...
And it looks like “Clinton” has the “Police Officers Backs”..
Which I think is GREAT....because I am sure if ask today he would say he ‘opposes’ the whole thing...
While the President of MEXICO Was BASHING the USA ALL Yesterday and Today....Why did NOT OBAMA STAND UP FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
And what a DISGRACE....when you have the President of Mexico up in front of Congress today “Bashing America”...
And OUR: HOME LAND SECURITY DOG>>>AND THE AG OF THE USA (HOLDER)...IS APPLAUDING HIM!
HERE IS MEXICO’S Immigration LAWS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWU01NIwGbg
We should trade Immigration laws with Mexico....LOL
____
Peace!
BTW: It is a LAW In California...That you have to produce Official PHOTO ID...at anytime when ask by a Law enforcement official!...that includes me and every other person in the state....
Peace!
____
http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/
Ping and pass it on!
You know, this Supreme Court decision opens a door for police officers in sanctuary cities to break their local rules and begin questioning people about their immigration status in the conduct of their ordinary business.
If any one of these police departments punishes any of these officers in any way, they’ll open themselves up to a nice fat lawsuit.
Hey LAPD... Go For It!
good
she cited 3 conditions that must be met before a cop can ask for someone’s papers
1) reasonable suspicion to stop someone
2) reasonable suspicions that they are here illegally
3) race cannot be a consideration
she said this case addresses all 3 - i am not so sure it does - especially the first condition - in that case, the reason for the encounter was a search warrant
the central reason for the suit was that they handcuffed her while doing the search - the second reason was if they could ask her for her papers
this was a unanimous decision on this case
but i might be turning libtard on the arizona law - repeal it and remove the constraints on the cops - the law seems to add more restraints instead of make it easier