Posted on 06/28/2010 6:01:30 PM PDT by Star Traveler
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would hear a legal challenge by business, civil rights and immigration groups to an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
The nation's highest court agreed to decide whether the 2007 state law infringed on federal immigration powers and should be struck down.
The law at issue in the case is different from the strict new Arizona immigration law passed earlier this year and criticized by President Barack Obama that requires the police to determine the immigration status of any person suspected of being in the country illegally.
But the Supreme Court's eventual decision in the case, depending on how the justices rule, could end up affecting the pending legal challenges to the new law as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Government has no authority to 'regulate immigration', merely to make a regular rule for naturalization.
Well..., sorry to tell you, though -- over the years I've seen government do a lot of things that certain others say it has no authority to do. So, in real life, it takes more that a certain group of people "saying so" ...
If the SC insists on continuing the expansion of illegitimate federal power to control every person and State in the country.......the People will be just about out of options.
The Constitution provides for a way to override the Supreme Court -- if the people decide to do so. It's called a Constitutional Amendment. Of course, it's something that the people have to agree to do, or else it's not going to get done.
AND..., if some group of people were to try to override the Supreme Court on some matter that it ruled on, and it failed -- that means that they don't have the support of the people to be able to do so. And that's exactly as the founding fathers intended it to be. There has to be an overwhelming majority before there's going to be any overriding of the Supreme Court.
Another way to look at these matters is that if a group says that a decision is wrong (at the Supreme Court) and the greater majority of people won't override it, then that's a clear indication that the Supreme Court is right in its decision "according to the greater majority of people".
To get something done in our society, you've got to carry a large group of people with you -- and then you've got the political power to make the changes. If you don't have the political power to make the changes, that's just the way it works.
As I've said all along -- the "real key" here is not the legislators or the Supreme Court or the President -- it's "the people" themselves. If they don't vote in the right legislators, if they don't vote in the right President, and thus they don't get the right Supreme Court appointees -- then this is what happens. The key is simply "grow more conservatives" so that the "vote" changes in this country.
I thought there was something on the “rocket docket.”
Maybe there is, but I sure haven't heard of it. But, please..., if anyone has information on it, post it here ... :-)
Do you mean MINORITY Opine.
Sorry for the double post
I don't care who you are--that is an oxymoron right there.
One can only hope! With Kagan on the court, who knows?
Yeah, sure, AZ should listen to the corrupt court. No way. The federal government, which includes the USSC, has failed to do their duty. AZ should hold firm. The feds don;t want to get into an income withholding issue.
She will vote the same way JP Stevens would’ve voted...
To be honest I'm surprised that they didn't. I'm not aware of any particularly tricky legal issues with the law. I thought the grounds for challenging it were awfully weak, and it progressed past the original judge and appellate court rather quickly.
I guess some of the justices felt the need to hear the case. It could be because they are skeptical of the law, or it could be that they want to set down a precedent on such laws that would be binding across the nation, not just within the jurisdiction of that particular appeals court.
Yeah, sure, AZ should listen to the corrupt court. No way. The federal government, which includes the USSC, has failed to do their duty.
Well, the only problem with that is -- that it's our system that we have -- to operate under. It's just like I've said about the general situation, all along here on Free Republic. It's not that the system itself is a problem or that even the legislators or the judges or the President -- are all the true problem -- at the "bottom of things".
The true problem is that the voters have put all these people in there and they haven't voted in the ones who would do things differently. Basically what it requires -- if one wants to change things -- is that we have to "grow more conservatives" and then it's going to take almost as long to get things back to the way it was before, as it took to get here in the first place. There are no quick solutions.
And then, if we can't "grow more conservatives" in order to carry through on the political power necessary, then you're just going to get more of the same. It's totally up to the voters, and so far, they've pretty much (as a "body" of voters and from what you can see as far as the office holders and judges and so on) have gone along with it all -- even if a certain segment of voters have not.
It's going to take a whole lot more than just saying stuff on a board. It's going to take growing a whole lot more conservatives, enough to exercise sufficient political power to carry through with all the necessary changes.
First of all, Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican ancestry; all Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens.
Second, do you think that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from all civil rights cases because they involve "his people"?
The left does not see it the way that we see it. To the left, identity politics trump other considerations. Puerto Rican is still considered Hispanic so she has solidarity with the illegals. If you doubt me, please look at her political activism and writings. She considers herself part of the oppressed minority, a laughable assertion given the privileges that have been bestowed upon her.
The left would prefer that Clarence Thomas recuse himself from all cases involving race. Clarence Thomas does not seem to play the identity politics game so he is reviled in the African American community.
When a case is brought to SCOTUS for consideration, it is a request for a writ of certiorari. If SCOTUS concurs, it is called "granting cert". It takes 4 justices to concur in order to "grant cert".
If cert is granted, then briefs are filed and a date for oral argument is set ...
Gov. Bredesen of TN just signed a law stating all law enforcement must provide ICE with anyone in custody who’s identity cannot be determined. John Doe has become Hans Perez.
Works for me.
Says it all, doesn’t it?
La Raza has convinced these fools that they sure are entitled.
Is there a challenge?
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.