[r9etb]

I found those arguments neither valid nor compelling.

So?

The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires.

It doesn't work both ways, though ... and that's the essence of the decision.

We agree that the Feds have failed to properly deal with illegal immigration. The question is how best to address that fact.

Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts.

[bill1952]

No, he has a valid point - those arguments are not compelling.

If they were then the states could simply stop investigating, arresting, and prosecuting for any and all Federal crimes.

The entire point is not on all fours, and as such, it is not compelling.

[Prokopton]

Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts.

If SCOTUS takes the appeal, you would be advised to bet on a reversal. In 2009, the Ninth was overturned 94% of the time.

[frog in a pot]

"Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts."

Let me take a passing shot at that.

Doesn't that stand for the proposition that a state can take no action and is defenseless vis-a-vis losses, even above and beyond its monetary losses, when the federal government chooses not to resist foreign invaders?

Perhaps it is not believed they are invaders?