Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)

Fox News Channel (link added) ^ | 6/25/12 | Staff

[Wyatt's Torch]

that’s what I’ve been trying to figure out. How do the states get the feds to enforce the laws already on the books? That issue is what prompted Arizona to pass this law in the first place.

[Terry Mross]

I agree with you. So does Judge Napolitano.

[Heart of Georgia]

***STOP listening to ppl in “news entertainment”.***

Not doubting your expertise, but Jay Sekulow is not entertainment.

[aruanan]

If we lose this election, then we get what we deserve.

This is always a dopey thing to say. It's a slogan substituting for thought.

[BlatherNaut]

If a State were to require EVERY citizen to get a work permit (which could be very pro forma, issued with drivers licences for example), and require everyone to provide a permit to work, that is not stepping on fed immigration law.

No, that would be a "civil rights" violation. /s

[Wyatt's Torch]

It has always been the case that state law is subject to preemption by federal law... this is not new.

Article IV Clause II:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

THE issue is that the federal law is not being enforced by the federal government. That is not a issue for SCOTUS to decide or remedy in this case. That is why Arizona passed S1070 and that is the issue that needs to be resolved.

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

I see this as a victory for the most part. ALL of the Justices upheld that the police have the right to check the immigration status of those they stop..

It appears the only reason the other provisions were stuck down is because they encroached on existing Federal Law, and not because they're unconstitutional on their face.

[xzins]

Scalia’s dissent makes clear how silly is any other opionion striking down the Arizona law. If the Constitution had a clause saying that Congress can pass immigration laws that the president can on personal whim enforce or not enforce, and that states are powerless to address, then Constitutional Convention would never have allowed that to pass.

It is insanity, and it is extremely troubling that Judge Roberts sided with the majority.

How in the world does it violate federal power for a state law to completely mirror the federal law but violate a presidential whim?

Arizona should put their national guard on their border against an imminent threat, a power reserved to them as Scalia pointed out.

[Wyatt's Torch]

From National Review:

Supreme Spin
By Mark Krikorian
June 25, 2012 10:59 A.M.

I’m in the delightful South Carolina low country, looking out at egrets in the marsh, and the kids are asking when we’re going into town — so I have more important things to do than hold forth at length on the Supreme Court’s Arizona decision. But the initial headlines on Twitter tell you something about the news sources. Reuters: “U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law, in Defeat for Obama”; Univision: “Supreme Court Strikes Down Most of Arizona Immigration Law.”

Reuters is right. Ask the man on the street what he thinks the Arizona law is about (whether he’s for it or against) and he’d say the requirement that police check legal status of people they encounter in lawful stops — and that’s the part that was upheld by the Court. The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? Making it a state misdemeanor for an illegal alien to apply for employment would be nice, for instance, but it’s not even a federal crime yet.

In any case, the core of the law was upheld, and will no doubt start being implemented. So let the next wave of lawsuits begin!

[txrangerette]

You don’t know what you are talking about.

You have proven that with your statements re Zimmerman and your throwing around your prosecutor card.

Stop telling me what to do.

Jay Sekulow is not spin.

Goodby.

[chessplayer]

Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay.

---

Yup.

[Diogenesis]

C19fan: "Romney’s record in Mass was horrible for court appointments."

ReleaseTheHounds: As I understand it, in Mass a committee makes the nominations and he has to select from those nominated.
Libs controlled that committee, so Romney could only select from that list.
you can't nail him for that. "

Actually, RINO Romney is the issue .... again.
Mr. RomneyCARE controlled the matter .... and screwed Conservatives ... again.

---

“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday.
The cause of death: failed leadership.
The party is survived by a few leftover legislators
and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists
who have been ignored for years.
Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow.
In lieu of flowers, send messages to Republican voters
warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006

---

"In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican
Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more
Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor
as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans
have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely
ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time
during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign.
He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate
the day before the general election!
“Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months
after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,”
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006

---

"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005

---

Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>

---

"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006

P leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!

[Jack Hydrazine]

Obama did sign an EO giving defacto amnesty to illegal aliens since he and his cronies were not able to pass the DREAM Act.

What are the States (not just the border States) supposed to do when they are being invaded by illegals and the Feds won’t do anything about them by EO?

It is up to the States to pick up the slack when the Feds don’t do they don’t enforce the law.

[Diogenesis]

C19fan, Forgot to ping you. You are correct.

[RIghtwardHo]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was a huge loss. The “unanimous” of which you speak was only about asking for papers in the abstract. And of course there is not a problem with that if there is reason to suspect. however, that part was remanded, there are other suits that will arise about it’s application. It may yet be struck down for other reasons.

But, hey, the talking heads can spin this any way they want so some of you can sleep at night. As they whittle away America one ruling at a time, all we do are read headlines and listen to pundits. Sad.

[txrangerette]

Not what happened.

A FReeper attacked Bush because Roberts ruled this way.

One teeny tiny little problemo...

The ruling was unanimous.

Clarence Thomas, Alito (Bush, too), Scalia, the whole lot of them ruled the same.

Therefore, attacking Bush because Roberts ruled the way all the others also ruled is...

What shall I call it?

I don’t use that kind of language.

[4Liberty]

Conclusion of 1070 SCOTUS ruling:

The Feds like a “Funded Mandate” (Law) if they support it.

If they don’t, they must remain Unfunded Mandates — even if a US State chooses to fund (enforce) the laws with its own state/local resources.

[chessplayer]

The great U.S. The ONLY country on the planet that will not protect it’s borders. The ONLY country on the planet that will not enforce it’s immigration laws. The Feds say states have no right to protect their borders or control illegal immigration, that it’s the job of the federal govt. to do. And the federal govt. says it won’t do it. Talk about screwed.

[Uncle Chip]

Not only is this a disaster for immigration, this is a HUGE disaster as it pertains to precedent for future “states right’s rulings”

We got beat and beat bad. And as long as we salve our feelings with those “news entertainment” idiots, we will NEVER know what is really going on.

I've read every comment on this entire thread and have to agree with you. SCOTUS has taken away 3 provisions of the law and left only 1, and that 1 is still not even secure, but subject to further lower court review. The lower court will now furtively dismantle that 1 until there is nothing left of it.

This is a disaster for conservatives. What are all these other people applauding???

[Sudetenland]

The correct path would have been to file a law suit in federal court against ICE and the Obama Administration for failing to enforce immigration laws with due diligence. I suspect that would have had more legs in the SCOTUS than this attempt to usurp federal powers.