Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chief Justice Roberts backs Obama in Arizona immigration ruling
Contact Center Solutions Industry News ^ | Jun 25, 2012

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; fastandfurious; immigration; obama; roberts; robertscourt; ruling; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last
Comment #1 Removed by Moderator

To: KeyLargo

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.


2 posted on 06/25/2012 4:27:54 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo

There’s one less thing we should thank W for.


3 posted on 06/25/2012 4:28:55 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyLargo
The USSC didn't make any new laws in the AZ case and left standing the authority of the state to direct cops to ask the question about legal presence in the US ~ a real blow to the Refuge Cities movement.

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.

4 posted on 06/25/2012 4:31:55 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

That’s the problem with judges. You never know where they’ll go once seated.


5 posted on 06/25/2012 4:32:39 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

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.


6 posted on 06/25/2012 4:33:58 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Barack Obama takes the oath of office from Chief Justice John Roberts

7 posted on 06/25/2012 4:36:28 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

Thanks, W.


8 posted on 06/25/2012 4:36:48 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

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.


9 posted on 06/25/2012 4:39:06 PM PDT by Thanks RR Rest Well ("Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on getting Paul's vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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.


10 posted on 06/25/2012 4:39:06 PM PDT by Echo4C (We have it in our power to begin the world over again. --Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy
Is anyone going to sue a state regarding their sanctuary city laws? It seems those are illegal infringements of federal authority under this ruling.

Seems like these things always go one way.

11 posted on 06/25/2012 4:41:20 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

State or municipality?


12 posted on 06/25/2012 4:42:01 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

“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.


13 posted on 06/25/2012 4:42:39 PM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Echo4C

The bottom-line, it still would not have made any difference


14 posted on 06/25/2012 4:43:03 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

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


15 posted on 06/25/2012 4:52:02 PM PDT by SeminoleCounty (When I said "close the borders", I did not mean the bookstore chain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

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.


16 posted on 06/25/2012 4:54:27 PM PDT by Ronald_Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

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.


17 posted on 06/25/2012 4:55:09 PM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ronald_Magnus

That’s why I googled his adopted kids.....Roberts is squeaky clean.


18 posted on 06/25/2012 4:57:27 PM PDT by Ann Archy ( ABORTION...the HUMAN Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Thanks RR Rest Well
This article provides some interesting perspective. Not sure how true it is but still worth a look.
19 posted on 06/25/2012 4:57:50 PM PDT by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty
The AZ law started out as a way to defeat the sanctuary cities movement.

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.

20 posted on 06/25/2012 4:59:53 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson