Supreme Court Appears To Favor AZ's Immigration Law

[Frizzle_Fry]

Don't fret, stoner...

...at least you have an excuse.

?? I wanted to hit up some vaycay outside the country??

Yeah...

...that must've been why. 'Cause everyone knows how "all but impossible it is" for folks without your security clearance to get their passports.

BTW: how long you been out, grunt?

I was retired in 08. I know my clearance got yanked before the ink on my DD214 was even dry but I got my passport in 07 when it was still active.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Factually, no one "other" has answered my very simple question...

...as you also refuse to do.

The reason for the deflection is because the answer to that very simple question is that, in fact, it is quite possible for "someone born here to prove they are a citizen"...

...one simple proof being how "possible" it is for citizens and non-citizens to obtain passports.

Anyone holding a USA passport that does not cite "non-citizen" is a citizen...

...and conversely, anyone holding a USA passport that does cite "non-citizen" is - quite obviously - not a citizen.

Pretty simple, almost all but the disingenuous would agree...

...so, again, tell me:

How "all but impossible" is it for virtually all legals resident of the United States to obtain a passport?

You're really cracking me up, Mootch.

I was parroting the Chief Justice's question to the Arizona lawyer. That lawyer agreed that if a citizen were taken into custody, it would difficult for the person to prove citizenship (You can quibble about "nearly impossible" or "difficult" if you want, we all know you're an idiot and that's what will be your take away from this) and could spend weeks in custody until he was able to prove he was legal. The questioning then turned to the length of time one could be detained without violation due process.

I eagerly await the results of your googling due process.

And get a job.

 

[eyer]

Deflect, blah, blah, blah...Deflect, blah, blah, blah...

It's a real simple question, Johnnyboy:

Is it - or is it not...

..."all but impossible for someone born here to prove they are a citizen"?

 

[JohnnySavage]

It's a real simple question, Johnnyboy:

Is it - or is it not...

..."all but impossible for someone born here to prove they are a citizen"?

Yes..

 

[Colonel Hogan]

It looks that way right now, especially with existing law undermining the President's policy and legal defense. The Landmark brief spells it out quite nicely I'd say:

http://landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-182tsacLandmarkLegalFoundation.pdf

As much as I would personally like to see Arizona prevail in this matter, I think it is going to be difficult for it to do so. District Judge Bolton effectively defined the parameters of the case by focusing on the federal doctrine of preemption. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not hesitate to embrace it in their decision last year.

Working backwards from where we are, the preemption doctrine flows naturally from the Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI of the Constitution, and is itself appropriately applied to a specific Article I, Sec. 8 enumerated power granted to Congress to “establish an uniform rule of Naturalization” by means of enacting “all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying (said power) into Execution.”

The Legal Landmark Foundation’s acknowledgment and endorsement of the concept of cooperation between state and federal authorities on the issue of immigration and naturalization enforcement is wholly appropriate in principle. Unfortunately, it is more than a little difficult to establish the existence of that cooperative principle in the face of a second appeal of a prior district and subsequent federal appeals court decisions resulting from a Federal government’s filing for an injunction against the very state legislation arguably illustrative of the principle.

I have a gut feeling this is what the decision will turn on.

I do not believe the Supreme Court will agree that Arizona’s “sovereign right to protect its citizens” will be held superior to the enumerated right of Congress to make and/or enforce a “uniform rule of Naturalization.”

I do not believe that Congress in making such a uniform rule is under a legal obligation to mitigate the impact of federal immigration policy on a gateway state like Arizona, even though fairness would suggest it should be.

I do not believe the Supreme Court will adjudge the Executive Branch to be in opposition to the will of Congress or acting contrary to its legislative intent absent loud and protracted protests from Congress to that effect.

I fear that Arizona’s only hope is that SCOTUS will see the enforcement of SB1070 as having no impact on federal immigration policy whatsoever. In order to do that, I believe the Court will have to carve out some area or distinction in the law which does not now exist and where states may operate.

Failing the Court’s willingness to do that, I do believe Arizona is essentially screwed.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

this is good! next we can 86 obama care!

yes we can!

 

[RobDownSouth]

That law was written by constitutional experts, you may need to instruct them on where they went wrong.

These "constitutional experts" might want to start looking for another line of work.

They got their asses kicked by the Supreme Court today 6-3, which said that while Americans have a God-given right to pursue happiness in the form of racial profiling, they absolutely, positively CAN NOT usurp or otherwise supplant the Federal Government's immigration policies.

No faux "states rights" for YOU!

 

[RoryN]

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration's claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

O noes! This doesn't sound right!

 

[RobDownSouth]

O noes! This doesn't sound right!

DAMN those Soopreme Court Justices for not following Miles' narrative!

And Miles and the Vettebigot were soooooooooo sure.........

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

The funniest shit I read in today's article regarding the courts decision:

"Meanwhile Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, says that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision"

I cannot stop laughing at the irony.

 

[MeeMie]

Justices clear KEY PART of Arizona's Immigration Law


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.

That provision, upheld unanimously, requires police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.


Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the court’s ruling allowing the enforcement of what she called “the heart” of the immigration crackdown measure. “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law,” Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of S.B. 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”



The other parts of AZ immigration law which were overturned were based on the federal government's power to regulate immigration:

• a section making it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without legal work authority
• a section allowing a police officer to arrest someone if the officer believes that he has committed a crime that could cause him to be deported, no matter where the crime took place.
• a section which would make it a violation of Arizona law for immigrants not to carry valid immigration papers. (it already is a federal requirement to carry valid immigration papers)



Today’s ruling came a little more than a year after the Supreme Court upheld another immigration-related Arizona law: one allowing revocation of a firm’s license to do business in the state if the company repeatedly hired illegal immigrants. By 5 to 3, the justices rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the employer-sanctions measure was preempted by federal law.




The court’s ruling on the key part of the Arizona law has already generated the expected outcry from Latino organizations over it. Immigrant-rights advocates were stunned and angered by the decision.




Maybe you loonies need to take some reading comprehension lessons.

 

[koalabear]

Justices clear KEY PART of Arizona's Immigration Law


The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.

That provision, upheld unanimously, requires police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.


Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the court’s ruling allowing the enforcement of what she called “the heart” of the immigration crackdown measure. “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law,” Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of S.B. 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”



The other parts of AZ immigration law which were overturned were based on the federal government's power to regulate immigration:

• a section making it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without legal work authority
• a section allowing a police officer to arrest someone if the officer believes that he has committed a crime that could cause him to be deported, no matter where the crime took place.
• a section which would make it a violation of Arizona law for immigrants not to carry valid immigration papers. (it already is a federal requirement to carry valid immigration papers)



Today’s ruling came a little more than a year after the Supreme Court upheld another immigration-related Arizona law: one allowing revocation of a firm’s license to do business in the state if the company repeatedly hired illegal immigrants. By 5 to 3, the justices rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the employer-sanctions measure was preempted by federal law.




The court’s ruling on the key part of the Arizona law has already generated the expected outcry from Latino organizations over it. Immigrant-rights advocates were stunned and angered by the decision.




Maybe you loonies need to take some reading comprehension lessons.

Don't wake up maggotdownsouth, he has so little reason to celebrate usually.

 

[coachdb18]

Anyone thinking Holder won't run a scheme to get an illegal shot and killed in a traffic stop to try and support a challenge to Arizona's unanimous Supreme Court victory is a total dumbass... Fast and Furious is just the tip of Holder's iceberg

 

[Adre]

Drinking at lunch again?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Justices clear KEY PART of Arizona's Immigration Law
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.
That provision, upheld unanimously, requires police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration
All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.
Gov. Jan Brewer hailed the court’s ruling allowing the enforcement of what she called “the heart” of the immigration crackdown measure. “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law,” Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of S.B. 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”
<derp snip>
Maybe you loonies need to take some reading comprehension lessons.

Well that's certainly putting a Republican smiley-face spin on it!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, SCOTUS neither upheld nor stuck down the odious 'papers please' provision. Instead, it stated that the 9th Circuit erred when it ruled that Section 2B was preempted by state law before allowing state courts to interpret the provision.

• If Arizona state courts interpret the provision in a way that does not conflict with federal law the law may stand.
• If Arizona state courts interpret the provision in a way that does conflict with federal law, it will be struck down as being preempted by federal law.

Put another way, the 9th Circuit apparently felt that "papers please" was facially invalid, that it could not possibly be interpreted in a way that would make it consistent with federal law. SCOTUS disagreed. Now that case will go back to state courts to interpret 2B. They'll interpret it, and then the 9th Circuit will (almost certainly) strike it down again. Then we'll be back in the Supreme Court again around 2014.

 

[MeeMie]

Well that's certainly putting a Republican smiley-face spin on it!

Politico.com is mostly always bent toward a liberal agenda - hardly a Republican spin:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html

 

[koalabear]

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1ypXOfpwH

 

[Wok]

If you think this is good, wait until the health care law decision comes in.

 

[koalabear]

If you think this is good, wait until the health care law decision comes in.

Holder's hoping it will distract a few people.

 

[RoryN]

*butthurt*

*butthurt*

*butthurt*

*butthurt*

*butthurt*

So precious.

 

[Wok]

Sheriff Joe will end the national nightmare once him and his posse finds the secret stash of Obama's real records.

 

[RobDownSouth]

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1ypXOfpwH

I'll use simple words that even YOU should be able to understand...
The Supremes said that the Arizona state courts should rule first, that it was premature to presume Federal jurisdiction immediately. And THEN it can be appealed at the Federal level.

It will be overturned as well, the Supremes just couldn't do it in one pass because it'd upset the conservative base.

 

[koalabear]

I'll use simple words that even YOU should be able to understand...
The Supremes said that the Arizona state courts should rule first, that it was premature to presume Federal jurisdiction immediately. And THEN it can be appealed at the Federal level.

It will be overturned as well, the Supremes just couldn't do it in one pass because it'd upset the conservative base.

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.

 

[MeeMie]

Yeah, those pesky Republicans sure know how to spin ...



The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants. The country's highest court by an 8-0 vote upheld the Arizona law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/25/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSBRE85O0Q520120625




The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 8-0 decision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops. That part of the law, which never went into effect because of court challenges, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html



The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision on Arizona’s tough 2010 immigration law, upholding its most controversial provision... The court unanimously sustained the law’s centerpiece, the one critics have called its “show me your papers” provision. It requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/supreme-court-rejects-part-of-arizona-immigration-law.html





Supreme Court upholds key portion of Arizona immigration law...Supreme Court upholds key portion is constitutional, paving the way for it to go into effect.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/03/20120603arizona-immigration-law-supreme-court-opinion.html#ixzz1ypbxNvtO




The real spin is coming out of the loonie wet dream having it overturned when rights are violated. Meanwhile, Gov. Jan Brewer is on top of it ... seeing that the constitutionally upheld law is administered fairly:

Statement by Governor Jan Brewer
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Upholds Heart of SB 1070​

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’”

 

[unregistered]