Posted on 06/25/2012 3:10:01 AM PDT by Perdogg
1. Az Immigration Case
2. Stolen Valor Act
3. ObamaCare Mandate
4. ObamaCare Severability
Popcorn ping ...
The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the check your papers provision. And the Courts opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated
You are not alone in that feeling.
The Supreme Court does not want to be seen as ‘extremist’ - it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s the reality (IMHO)
Very well written.
Williams reminds me of Eeyore: “We’re doomed...we’re finished...might as well accept our doom”
That'd be a hell of a way to interpret the Constitution for something so vital as immigration enforcement. Remember all those Justices' negative.. almost dismissive.. reactions to the arguments of the Solicitor General? They gave off exactly the same countenance during the Obamacare arguments.
It appears the Justices have tipped their hand as to how the Obamacare endgame will play out. I'm very pessimistic that it'll be struck down.
That’s not a good sign. Roberts is compromised. It’s what I feared all along but I was hoping it was just my imagination.
Interesting viewpoint. I suppose we will have to wait until he writes his memoirs to find out for sure.
Open the border and get the buses rolling.
I’m fairly certain that the individual mandate will be struck down. My fear is that that will be the only thing struck down.
States enforcing what constitutes breaches in immigration laws is unconstitutional. Had this been upheld - every state in the Union could have their own immigration requirements.
So it’s a very good ruling by SCOTUS here.
What’s the point in allowing officers to check the papers if nothing can be done?
This is exactly why Texas stayed out of passing Arizona type laws.
While Rick Perry supported Arizona, he realized it would get bogged down in expensive and fruitless federal interference.
The AZ Decision was based on the State taking over border controls, which is a function of the Federal Government.
What it SHOULD have been about was the State ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW, when the FedGov refuses to.
I don’t agree with the way the federals handle their end of the bargain but the valid argument was the federal government has already claimed immigration as its own province and has rules in place with which the Arizona law will conflict.
Here’s a question for everyone. Does this mean that if we take both houses this fall that they can pass laws granting some enforcement back to the states? Essentially making this ruling moot?
After the Arizona vote today, I am very, very concerned if Roberts and Kennedy are writing the healthcare decision. This Arizona decision spits in the face of any legal alien who waited in line, payed the money and entered the USA the correct way.
“But but but didn’t the WH jester just pronounce that his ICE will not take action against these “undocumented DemocRATS”, no matter how the police waste their time?”
Then it’s the duty of We the People not to vote for him in 2012.
By the Court holding that immigration is a federal matter, did they not through the back door just strike down all “sanctuary” state and city laws? If a future POTUS gets tough on illegals, cities and states will be unable to interfere by passing their little sanctuary ordinances.
Then it would seem sanctuary city and state practices should become a thing of the past, because they don't comport with Federal law.
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.