Although I agree with what Scalia said, I “concur” with Dionne partially. I worry that Scalia’s mouthing off about current events may result in his having to recuse himself in a forthcoming case about immigration.
“Although I agree with what Scalia said, I “concur” with Dionne partially. I worry that Scalia’s mouthing off about current events may result in his having to recuse himself in a forthcoming case about immigration.”
Given that he was talking about this particular case I don’t see that being a problem. His example was quite appropriate and insightful in-regards to the implications of the Federal court edict on the Arizona law..
The Federal court was effectively giving the President the discretionary to decide not to enforce Federal laws, by prohibiting the States from using their own resources to enforce the laws themselves.
From the prospect of one who wishes to see Federal laws enforced the edict was rather disappointing. Insolently it was also disappointing from the prospective of those who believe in the text of the Constitution and the promise that the States are still sovereign.
I agree with Scalia in that this edict was in the ironic position of being a blow to both Federal law and State sovereignty, two sides not usually allied. His example served to make that point quite well.
Some attorney may correct my perception, but there appears to be no legal authority over supreme court recusal. Specifically, both Kagan and Sotomayor could have lost their jobs if the Kerchner case had resulted in the removal of an ineligible Obama. Kagan was solicitor general, working for the executive branch, when a half dozen eligibility cases were appealed to the Supreme Court.
Kagan and Sotomayor refused to recuse themselves from the vote to determine whether the court would hear the Kerchner case. We don't have access to the vote, but there was an announcement that the "rule of nine" resulted in the court's decision not to hear the case. Had Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves there would have been a "rule of seven", and even Roberts, who seems likely to be one of those protecting Obama, and not the Constitution, couldn't have rejected the case. This probably holds for other cases, including the several Donofrio cases. Any case which could remove their patron, and thus his lifetime appointments are a patent conflict of interest. These justices were voting themselves millions of dollars in benefits by protecting Obama. Grounds for impeachment of justices?
Nope it wouldn't; precisely because the Constitution talks about laws for a uniform law of naturalization, if such law is not being applied uniformly, how can such be Constitutional?