Posted on 04/25/2012 1:27:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Signs it's not going well for this government and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the Supreme Court: when a traditionally liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama has no idea of the argument they're trying to make.
Enter Justice Sonia Sotomayor:
"Putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said to Verrilli.
"Because I, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?"
Verrilli had a rough time today trying to sell the Supreme Court justices — even the liberal ones — against the Arizona immigration law.
For context, Verrilli opened with a three-pronged opening argument against a controversial provision in SB 1070 that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion. It went like this:
1. Two million Hispanics live in Arizona — 400,000 illegally. Almost immediately, Justice Antonin Scalia cut him off because it "sounds like racial profiling to me." Earlier, Verrilli assured Chief Justice John Roberts that he would not attempt to argue on racial profiling grounds.
2. He moved onto the accountability issues of state officials enforcing federal laws but not being held accountable. No justice seemed to buy that.
3. The new amount of reports from state officials would overburden federal resources.
But that argument drew the skeptical comments from Sotomayor.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Thanks for the info SR but I still don't understand why the focus on AZ. Many folks say that the new AL and the MO laws are the toughest in the nation. I could be mistaken about the accuracy of that though.
I also thought that the federal government represented it’s side well in regards to sections 3 and 5 of SB1070. It is no turkey shoot for the state of Arizona, but my God! The Arizona attorney is incredibly eloquent and knowledgeable as well!
Thanks again for posting the transcript, it was very educational.
He’s worse than a “flaming liberal”. A flaming liberal would have just hired the gay spokesperson all along, conservatives be damned. At least, most liberals are honest about the contempt they hold us and our values in. Romney’s the kind of guy who will pretend to be your best friend, then screw you over to get a promotion and sleep with your wife to top it off.
Look, I am trying to be fair, and so far having heard her in the proceedings on ObamaCare and the AZ case, I am so far more impressed w here than brier or Ginsburg or kagan.
sotomayor seems a lot less idealogical and more in to the facts of the cases.
I just think she is trying to be a good judge based on the facts of the cases. her experience as a judge is far better than having a hack like kagan up there.
Kagan has absolutely no qualifications to be on SCOTUS, and that she didn’t recuse herself on the ObamaCare case is not only unethical, but should serve as a basis to impeach her. She was put on SCOTUS for one reason and one reason only: To do the administration’s bidding, especially on ObamaCare. What a despicable creature.
Proposing a law is one thing, passing it is another.
I smell desperation.
That is the difference between is and the leftists. When bush tried meirs we revolted and got Alito. The leftists just march in lock step.
Since the O’care hearings, I’ve had the feeling that at least one of the D-appointed justices, maybe up to 3, would join in an opinion declaring at least the mandate part unconstitutional.
I think Sotomayor may surprise us. I have listened to all the recordings of the ObamaCare hearings and this and she seems to be a decent judge.
Of course we ,ay be fooled, but let’s see. I would love nothing else than for her to rule against obama on this.
“It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.”
Wow! Such straightforward language. Sure would like to see more of it and lots less spin.
Living room? What living room? All I see are elephants everywhere!
Yes, I can easily visualize a Republican majority senate voting to remove a Republican president if the offense warranted removal but I cannot see a Democrat senate voting to remove Obama for any reason whatsoever. It would take something too horrible to contemplate for them to do their duty.
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.