[Flotsam_Jetsome]

Also from the article: "In response, Justice Scalia jumped back into the fray, noting, first, that the constitutional grant of exclusive authority is over "naturalization which we've expanded to immigration": But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

[scooby321]

It looks like Obama will go 0-2 this June on Arizona and Obama Care.

Then a lost in November this whole country will be ok.

[Hostage]

Here's the money argument that both Obama lawyer Verrilli and SCOTUS missed:

Undaunted, General Verrilli pressed forward, asserting that "the Framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations."

Scalia had been quick to point out that the Constitution vested interest over 'naturalization' versus 'immigration' asserting the United States has authority to decide whether an alien shall be allowed to become a citizen but that state sovereignty allowed for a state to control its borders.

A key to this exchange is that SCOTUS is focusing words, definitions, meanings and intent to the literal wording of the Constitution and not to Verrilli's extrapolation to 'immigration'.

But both Scalia and Verrilli lost the opportunity to focus on the real word that is at issue, 'illegal immigration'. Even this term 'illegal immigration' has problems.

Obviously, 'immigration' and 'illegal immigration' are not the same. But what is 'immigration' and what is 'illegal immigration'?

Immigration is a process by which a foreign person obtains a license to reside and enjoy the benefits and most rights of living in the US. Illegal immigration is where a person resides in and benefits from living in the US without license.

Illegal immigrants are not immigrants. The word is included in their descriptor because they are usurping privileges of legal immigrants. But in reality they are illegal border crossers.

Looking above again at what Verrilli said:

"the Framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration..."

Even if SCOTUS were to concede Verrilli's argument, this statement has nothing to do with 'illegal immigration' or illegal border crossing. Verrilli is merely expressing the underlying political motive that Obama considers 'illegal aliens' as 'immigrants' or 'immigrants-to-be' and as 'future or already current democrat illegal voters'.

[Graybeard58]

With Sotomayor’s tone, this thing might be an 8-0 slap in the face for Obama.

I understand that Kagan or however you spell the idiot’s name, has recused herself. In my opinion, that’s not all she should do to herself.

[Thumper1960]

The Federal government is on notice.
When the Federal government displays little respect for The Law, if cannot complain when The People display a similar disrespect for The Law. The Federal government agitates for anarchy and will have to accept that anarchy is a two way street.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

The Alamo

[AuntB]

Scalia: What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

EXACTLY!!!