Replies

You'd have to review the notes from the legislation that enacted the "

B effin S. As Scalia wrote many many many many many many times, in interpreting legislative intent you apply the clear letter of the law as written. You resort to secondary sources only if the law as written is ambiguous. This is not ambiguous.

Period. And no-one can claim he is a conservative who believes that the administrative acts of the Administration should not be judicially reviewable.

I know the following is of a much less important, if non-existent, impact to the ruling, however, once again, the relevant statute (§ 1153 (b)(3).A.iii) requires:

(iii) Other workers
Other qualifiedimmigrants who are capable, at the time of petitioning for classification under this paragraph, of performing unskilled labor, not of a temporary or seasonal nature, for which qualified workers are not available in the United States.

From the factual history of this case:

In October 2006, Deluxe Inn, a motel in Lansing, Michigan, filed a Form 9089 with the Department of Labor on Patel’s behalf. In that application, Deluxe Inn claimed that it was offering Patel a position as a lodging manager at an hourly wage of $22.28, or $46,342 per year, that it had advertised the position previously through a notice in two issues of a local newspaper, but that no qualified American workers had applied for the job.

This is laughable. An job posting in a "local" newspaper, twice, is supposed to suffice as proof that another American was not available to take the job?

This is the kind of thing that should have been mentioned by a jurist that is supposed to be super conservative, a textualist, etc.

You'll notice that Kethledge said nothing about this.