Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement

Justice Antonin Scalia ^ | June 25, 2012 | Justice Antonin Scalia

[ZULU]

“The Obama administration argued vigorously against the law, and particularly against the provision of the right of police to check the legal status of people that they come into contact with on routine stops, who they have reason to believe are not in the country legally. The court struck down 5–3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting, Kagan recused) other provisions in the law that make it against Arizona state law for illegal immigrants to apply for a job or fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the U.S. legally. “

So. If a business asks an applicant if they are here legally, or checks and finds out on their own, he or she is not, can’t they call the local police and report that individual for arrest and detention?

[kevao]

They should announce that they will no longer enforce the FEDERAL LAWS against bank robbery................

That will hurt Arizona depositors whose banks are robbed much more than it will hurt the Feds.

[OneWingedShark]

Which isn’t a bad thing given our ‘choice’ between Obama and Romney.

I've been saying it for a while but that would be an unmitigated disaster; it's a Morton's Fork.

If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.

That won't fly; there's too many "inseparable part of the union"-type clauses in a lot of State Constitutions.
There is, however, something nearly as fun that can be done [by border-states]:

1. Declare a "state of invasion" calling up the State's National Guard, and the state militias, while issuing shoot-to-kill authorization.
2. Demand from D.C. aid; they are required to do so via Art 4, Sec 4 of the US Constitution.
   "We need help NOW! If we didn't we wouldn't have had to call up our unorganized militia."

This in turn leads to only three options the Fe[d]ral government can reply with:

1. Send help; highly unlikely given the political entrenchment of the "open borders" folks.
2. Drag-feet/delay/dissemble; this is more likely, but given the above would be politically disastrous, as well as proving that in addition to immigration-law the federal government can also choose whether or not to obey the Constitution.
3. Attack the state; perhaps the most likely option... and the most interesting given the Definition of Treason contained within the US Constitution.
   1. Executive -- Actual military attack.
   2. Judicial -- Declaring that the states do not have the power to defend themselves... and thereby invalidating EVERY State Constitution wherein the duty for a defense against invasion is mentioned.
   3. Legislative -- Likely some sort of targeted laws or funding cutting.

It becomes even better if two or three states do it: imagine AZ, NM, and TX all declaring invasion and militantly securing the borders.

[Jedidah]

Isn’t that what E Verify is all about?

[zeestephen]

Thanks.

I didn’t understand that a tie confirms the original decision.

Still, I’d like to read his personal thoughts on the three issues where he voted against Conservatives.

[RJL]

John Robert’s votes with the liberals on Arizona’s SB1040?

I guess we have to expect Bush league opinions from Bush judicial nominees.

[ZULU]

I think so.

[xzins]

See Scalia’s dissent above at article and post #1.

[netmilsmom]

>>If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.<<

I’m hoping the FReepers that are holding a place for us in the beautiful state of Texas will be ready for the camper, The former Marine hubby and my two handgun and Krav Maga girls to arrive ready to fight!

Oh, and the cookies. My famous chocolate chip cookies!

[MestaMachine]

“So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”

And the answer has become all too obvious. Time for choosing comes quickly, does it not?

[houeto]

John Robert’s votes with the liberals on Arizona’s SB1040? I guess we have to expect Bush league opinions from Bush judicial nominees.

As far as I'm concerned, this is on Kennedy, not Roberts. I might be wrong but I think the libs had Roberts over a barrel. If he doesn't side with them it is a 4-4 tie and the entire law gets scrapped so he has to look like a bad guy to get the one portion upheld.

I'll keep reading threads to see what others have to say on the ruling.

-houeto.

[Wyatt's Torch]

Serious question, how do you reconcile state sovereignty with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution? Seems to me that these two issue are fundamentally at odds in this case.

[Eaker]

Always room in Texas for Conservatives.

Especially Conservatives with cookies!

[headstamp 2]

This ruling ranks right up there with the one granting the EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant.

[JCBreckenridge]

Ma’am it would be impolite to refuse. :)

Psst how old are your girls? ;)

[thouworm]

headstamp 2: This ruling ranks right up there with the one granting the EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant.

Good reminder!!!....At the very least, in its effects.

MM: And the answer has become all too obvious. Time for choosing comes quickly, does it not?

To repeat Justice Scalia:

Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.

[MestaMachine]

This lawless regime has already gone beyond sovereign states and into our homes, our bank accounts, our medical records, even to the outright theft of our children’s thoughts. Nothing is sacred anymore.

[BigEdLB]

BRAVO!, Justice Scalia

[noinfringers2]

Roberts is and has been a tool for Obama and his enablers’ Something with this guy Roberts smells to the high heavens. Perhaps it something to do with investments. Whatever the reason/cause for his actions he will go down in history as the wrong man at the right time. Of course this should have been expected recognizing that Roberts chose to have an inauguration blooper (I believe it was deliberately planned) corrected in private chambers apart from customary procedure when the citizens of the USA had a right to have a public correction. I will trust that Roberts will have to answer to the highest court of judgement for his efforts to change the USA.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.