[Cowboy Bob]

What has Scalia done that every liberal justice since Thurgood Marshall hasn’t? They never seem to mind discussing their political philosophies (except during confirmation hearings, of course).

Since Thurgood Marshall? I would at least go back as far as William O. Douglas.

[Tallguy]

Respectfully, you’re probably a little older than I.

[Old North State]

Scalia’s argument is not a political argument it is a constitutional argument. The Arizona ruling was conditioned on the idea that the requirement to protect the borders is a federal duty not a state duty and the state must therefore yield to the federal government. But that argument assumes the federal government will uphold the law. Scalia was pointing out that that the argument of federal supremacy does not make sense when the federal government willingly fails in it’s duty. Are the states and the people to be left defenseless against roving bands of invaders if the occupant of the white house sees some political advantage in allowing such raids? The correct constitutional position that sovereign states must yield to federal execution of the laws protecting the border but have every right to establish laws that protect their people when the federal government refuses to act. The constitution is not a suicide pact.