Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
I have said it before, I will say it again:
Our Supreme Court is only a CONSERVATIVE majority when it comes to CORPORATE/Financial issues (and to some degree now, guns).
On everything else, it is still a Liberal Majority. Immigration, Abortion, Euthansia, Affirmative Action, States’ Rights, Gay Agenda, et al - the Court is at least a one justice (usually two) majority vote for the LEFT.
The Mandate will not survive because The Chamber does not want it to. The Immigration laws will continue to be struck down because the Chamber wants them struck down. CFR will get struck down every time because the Chamber wants it struck down. Some of these decisions are just, some are heinous; but make no mistake about it: it has little or nothing to do with consistency and everything to do with influence.
The Chamber adores Romney and controls him. Don’t expect Roe overturned or immigration laws enforced if Romney nominates even as many as five SCOTUS Justices. We will get more of the status quo: increased Corporate Rights while smacking down every attempt to pass stricter immigration laws or to overturn Roe.
Even Bush tried to give us Gonzalez and Miers. Roberts helped strike down the immigration laws.
Separate issue.
Impeachment is the remedy when presidents deliberately violate the Constitution.
All of them are political except for Clarence Thomas. Remember that Scalia expanded Marxism by interpreting the Commerce Clause as granting absolute power for the government to interfere in any activity.
I think this knocks the crap out of Joe Arpaio. Not sure.
Agree.
This is baloney. The 10th amendment will continued to be shredded by the Feds and SCOTUS until states get the will to simply defy the FEDs and do it.
Short of sending in troops, the Feds can’t do a heck of lot. It is way past time for the Imperial Federal Government to be seriously challenged. And not in court, but on the playing field.
We (the states) will *never* win back our rights via the Federal courts. They must be seized by willful action. Do it and defy DC to stop them.
Where are the dynamic men of our history, willing to act on principle? The states protest, go to court, get rebuffed and then crawl back with tail between legs. Pathetic.
Short of a war against a corrupt Federal government the only option is to stop funding a corrupt Federal government. Period.
It works, because it is non-violent, and the Feds would have to make the first move.
Arresting otherwise law abbiding tax paying citizens enmasse
Also, the system would overwhelm itself, not to mention unable to fund itself, and I believe they would have to back down.
Imagine if the Feds got violent against its own, otherwise law abiding, citizens.
Which would quite probably provoke a war the corrupt Feds do not want.
Just a thought.
It looks pretty good to me but it leaves me with a bad taste. Instead of acting in a very deliberate fashion, stating in no uncertain terms, the court tends to split the baby, which is what I assume they’ll do with obamacare.
They didn't uphold it. They sent it back to the lower court for further review -- and you can use your imagination as to what that will mean when they're finished with it.
“Romney’s record in Mass was horrible for court appointments.”
Much as a I dislike Romney, I don’t let it get in the way of reason. As Governor Rmoney’s judical appoints had to be taken from a list he was provided by a Democrat led committee and are not representative of who his personal choices would have been. That said, given his record on other issues, Romney’s judgement on judicial appointments is highly suspect. All I can say is that most certyaintly be better than Obama’s. By how much is a crap shoot.
Yep. Enforcement of existing law is the main issue. That's what prompted Arizona to pass it at a state level to begin with.
Thanks svcw.
It was part of Scalia’s argument in dissent on the soveignty of states, so he wasn’t concerned with impeachment but in establishing that the power to decide who can or can’t enter your territory is the primary definition of sovereignty.
Drunky Gonzalez gets to stay in the neighborhood of those he ran over.
Booshes fault. (for ceding the office to a foreigner)
Hope will not change the fact that Kennedy is an attention whore and Roberts seems to be one in training. It is the only explanation for a vote declaring enforcing the law is against the law.
“..there are other suits that will arise about it’s application.”
*****
Bingo. This isn’t going to go away any time soon.
You can bet the ACLU and La Raza types are preparing for a new round of suits over racial profiling & probable cause issues and what “reason to suspect” means.
You only have to look at the abhorrent Federal attitude towards airport security to see the future.
A Government that effectively institutionalizes feeling up 90 year old nuns and teenage girls to avoid hurting the ever so delicate sensibilities of a bunch of muzzies is going to come down like a ton of bricks on AZ if the race pimps can convince ‘em that “reason to suspect” mean’s “working class and brown.”
If he did it. There would be the place to look for it.
No mention here of Roberts even partially dissenting;
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law. Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law. Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.
Source
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia commented on President Obama’s recent announcement suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — an issue not actually part of the Arizona case:
It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30…
The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
Next, Arizona should either sue the federal govt for failing to do their jobs, or
Continue business as usual, until the feds step in and start doing their jobs.””””
I vote for Arizona to sue the Feds.
Another reason that border states are in such financial trouble is that the Feds don’t stop the illegals from crossing our borders in the first place and then the Feds refuse to reimburse the states/counties/cities for the cost of catching 7 holding them for ICE.
Worse—Ice won’t even answer the phone & come get these creeps & deport them.
California is owed millions for the costs of rounding up the illegals there.
I’m surprised you haven’t bashed Reagan for picking Kennedy..
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.