Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts
Posted on 06/25/2012 4:23:29 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[June 25, 2012]
Chief Justice Roberts backs Obama in Arizona immigration ruling
WASHINGTON, Jun 25, 2012 (Los Angeles Times - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Helping drive (albeit from the back seat) the Supreme Court toward what amounted to a victory for the Obama administration in the Arizona immigration case was a man often seen as one of Obama's chief antagonists at the court -- Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
(Excerpt) Read more at callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com ...
His two ADOPTED children came from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA. Can’t thinl od any other reason to vote with the Disgusting Liberals. If I’m wrong I will apologize.....but he disgusts me now.
There’s one less thing we should thank W for.
The leftwingtards probably figured that one out by now ~ and so did the rest of the majority in this case.
Now, what does that mean about the rest of the law ~ well, Congress can authorize the states to enforce federal immigration law if they wish. The claim of federal pre-emption was not exclusive ~ and the reference was to the degree Congress has already allowed states to do various things.
Up to Boehner.
That’s the problem with judges. You never know where they’ll go once seated.
Roberts was not to blame for the decision. Had he not voted for it, he would not have been able to assign the opinion to Kennedy.
Had he voted against it, the ruling would have been 4-4, upholding the decision of the 9th circuit, throwing out the entire law. At least part of the law can remain intact.
Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts
Thanks, W.
Not sure how accurate this is, but lawyer on Lou Dobbs commented on that. He thought Roberts sided with the liberals for part of the decision in order to maintain the provision for producing papers if stopped. Had he not joined them, the whole 9th circuit decision would have been upheld. That decision had struck down that provision also.
This is incorrect - on the one provision that was upheld, the vote was unanimous, which means that provision would have been upheld regardless of how the other provisions turned out. Those votes went either 5-3 or 6-2, a 4-4 decision on any of them would have simply upheld the 9th circuit’s decision on that particular provision.
Seems like these things always go one way.
State or municipality?
“The justices were careful, though, to leave the door wide open to future challenges. “This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”
Napolitano has ordered the feds not to cooperate with Arizona law enforcement.
The bottom-line, it still would not have made any difference
Now with this SCOTUS ruling...those Illegal Alien Sanctuary Cities can be taken to court and be successfully sued....of course if the courts follow SCOTUS precedent
On his show this morning, Rush said he’s suspicious of Roberts because of something he was told about him. He wouldn’t say what that something was. Doesn’t bode well for Thursday’s ruling on Obamacare imo.
Before it’s all said and done the feds are going to wish this ruling had gone differently.
I predict a sudden rash of lawsuits by states seeking recovery of damages from the federal government for it’s failure to enforce current immigration law.
That’s why I googled his adopted kids.....Roberts is squeaky clean.
The USSC just destabilized that sort of thing by making it quite lawful for a state to direct the cops to inquire of status. AZ had a number of 'sanctuary cities" ~ to wit; Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix and Tucson.
So much for the far leftwingtards in AZ and everywhere else.
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.