Supreme Court Appears To Favor AZ's Immigration Law

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

If I had more time I'd catalog all of the Lit Loones who swore this was unconstitutional. Probably be some real laughs in there.

"Papers please" was NOT declared "constitutional", you dumb son of a bitch.

The Supremes simply said that particular challenge had to go through state courts first.

 

[coachdb18]

Since the battle between State and Federal governments is failing to protect the people of Arizona, I really don't understand why the people of Arizona don't just go ahead and take it upon themselves to landmine the border... no more worries about deportation, calls to ICE, lawsuits....... and no more crime wave.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Since the battle between State and Federal governments is failing to protect the people of Arizona, I really don't understand why the people of Arizona don't just go ahead and take it upon themselves to landmine the border... no more worries about deportation, calls to ICE, lawsuits....... and no more crime wave.

Because Land Mines R Us recently went out of buisness....

Have you seen the shipping costs on M86's...Those bitches ain't light.

 

[coachdb18]

Since the battle between State and Federal governments is failing to protect the people of Arizona, I really don't understand why the people of Arizona don't just go ahead and take it upon themselves to landmine the border... no more worries about deportation, calls to ICE, lawsuits....... and no more crime wave.

Because Land Mines R Us recently went out of buisness....

Have you seen the shipping costs on M86's...Those bitches ain't light.

I'd venture to say that there are few Taliban with IED's that could give a few classes and provide some logistics options to fuck up illegal alien importation ... it really doesn't take much other than the realization there MIGHT be a threat of personal injury or loss of life to get people to reconsider their options...

 

[TexasWife25]

I'd venture to say that there are few Taliban with IED's that could give a few classes and provide some logistics options to fuck up illegal alien importation ...

 

[MeeMie]

Papers please" was NOT declared "constitutional", you dumb son of a bitch.

You dumb son of a bitch, why do you think it was before the Supreme Court?

Let me give you a clue ... to find if the law was "constitutional"

and ...


The Supreme Court 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

 

[Colonel Hogan]

SCOTUS examined four provisions of the law. Three were struck down as unconstitutional. The one that remains hangs by a thread and depends totally on Arizona police officers' ability to enforce it in a constitutional manner -- something that is not at all assured.

Governor Brewer's description of today's ruling as a "vindication" is like the United States declaring to have "repelled" the attack by virtue of the 29 Japanese planes shot down over Pearl Harbor.

 

[cjh]

You dumb son of a bitch, why do you think it was before the Supreme Court?

Let me give you a clue ... to find if the law was "constitutional"

and ...


The Supreme Court 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

The embedded quote is from the majority opinion.

However, Kennedy's opinion does set the state up for future possible lawsuits. He wrote that if an individual is detained under SB 1070 for longer than they would have been before just to check their legal status, that would be a constitutional problem.

"This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect," he wrote.

Looks like the Court said that they cannot tell whether it is constitutional until they see how it is applied.

 

[coachdb18]

SCOTUS examined four provisions of the law. Three were struck down as unconstitutional. The one that remains hangs by a thread and depends totally on Arizona police officers' ability to enforce it in a constitutional manner -- something that is not at all assured.

Governor Brewer's description of today's ruling as a "vindication" is like the United States declaring to have "repelled" the attack by virtue of the 29 Japanese planes shot down over Pearl Harbor.

At least your portrayal of Holder's attacks on Arizona as a comparison to Pearl Harbor were on target...

Ironic, considering it is the USS Arizona that forms the central focus of the memorial at Pearl Harbor today ...

 

[MeeMie]

Looks like the Court said that they cannot tell whether it is constitutional until they see how it is applied.

Looks like you and the rest of the loonies are jumping to the conclusion that the law won't be applied fairly.

I suggest you read Gov. Jan Brewer's statement in that regard ... with special emphasis on her last two paragraphs:


“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.’”

 

[cjh]

Looks like you and the rest of the loonies are jumping to the conclusion that the law won't be applied fairly.

I suggest you read Gov. Jan Brewer's statement in that regard ... with special emphasis on her last two paragraphs:


“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.’”

I have not jumped to any conclusion about its application.

The majority was clear to state they had not either.

You, on the other hand, seem to think you can read bird guts.

 

[Sean]

When both CJ and Hogan get together to kick the shit out of morons on a con law issue, it truly is a joy to behold.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

At least your portrayal of Holder's attacks on Arizona as a comparison to Pearl Harbor were on target...

Ironic, considering it is the USS Arizona that forms the central focus of the memorial at Pearl Harbor today ...

Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander of Japanes naval forces at the time of Pearl Harbor, was eventually targeted by American military forces and killed in an air attack on his plane in April of 1943.

Considering the problems AG Holder is FINALLY having with operation "Fast and Furious," I'd say he isn't out of harms way just yet.

 

[koalabear]

When both CJ and Hogan get together to kick the shit out of morons on a con law issue, it truly is a joy to behold.

The law still stands.

 

[coachdb18]

At least your portrayal of Holder's attacks on Arizona as a comparison to Pearl Harbor were on target...

Ironic, considering it is the USS Arizona that forms the central focus of the memorial at Pearl Harbor today ...

Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander of Japanes naval forces at the time of Pearl Harbor, was eventually targeted by American military forces and killed in an air attack on his plane in April of 1943.

Considering the problems AG Holder is FINALLY having with operation "Fast and Furious," I'd say he isn't out of harms way just yet.

yup..

 

[MeeMie]

I have not jumped to any conclusion about its application.

The majority was clear to state they had not either.

You, on the other hand, seem to think you can read bird guts.

You certainly have voiced your opinion that the decision will be reversed upon faulty application. Bird guts have nothing to do with Gov. Brewer's stated intent (which I can only assume you still have not read as it decimates your hope for reversal due to unfair application)


They (all eight justices) voted unanimously to uphold the key element of the law as not unconstitutional.


Scalia was more outspoken saying the entire law should have been upheld and blasted Obama in a dissent statement. You've quoted only one opinion.

 

[cjh]

You certainly have voiced your opinion that the decision will be reversed upon faulty application. Bird guts have nothing to do with Gov. Brewer's stated intent (which I can only assume you still have not read as it decimates your hope for reversal due to unfair application)


They (all eight justices) voted unanimously to uphold the key element of the law as not unconstitutional.


Scalia was more outspoken saying the entire law should have been upheld and blasted Obama in a dissent statement. You've quoted only one opinion.

I haven't said that. Why are you making things up? Is that the only way you can make your point when you aren't stealing someone else's words?

The MAJORITY said its meaning was uncertain. Maybe it will be applied constitutionally. Maybe not. All we know is that its fate ultimately hinges on how Arizona interprets it.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” he wrote. “At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [the police check provision] will be construed in a way that creates conflict with federal law,” Kennedy said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...igration-law-cannot-stand-Supreme-Court-rules

 

[RoryN]

I haven't said that. Why are you making things up? Is that the only way you can make your point when you aren't stealing someone else's words?

Yes.

He steals individual sentences in order to create responses:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=34867062#post34867062

Modern liberals view the Constitution, and our freedoms, exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us.

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/06/james-madison-father-of-the-constitution/

"[Glen] Beck pointed out that modern liberals view the Constitution and our freedoms exactly the reverse of how they were designed; they view the Constitution as a frustrating obstacle to all that they want to do, while our founders saw it as an obstacle to all that an over-powerful government might want to do TO us."

Didn't cite. Didn't link. He just passed it off as his own sentence.

 

[MeeMie]

I haven't said that. Why are you making things up? Is that the only way you can make your point when you aren't stealing someone else's words?

The MAJORITY said its meaning was uncertain. Maybe it will be applied constitutionally. Maybe not. All we know is that its fate ultimately hinges on how Arizona interprets it.

You said ...

"Looks like the Court said that they cannot tell whether it is constitutional until they see how it is applied."


Just the opposite is true ... the point the loonies are trying to make is that the application of the law would prove it unconstitutional. However, the justices said that there was no conflict with the constitution, nor federal law, and that it would have to be proven unconstitutional (not constitutional) ... today's ruling has already verified that the government failed their constitutionality challenge:

Kennedy wrote for the majority that the court could not assume the law would conflict with federal law, and as a result the United States cannot prevail in its constitutionality challenge .




And the spin goes on ....

May I refer you, once again, to Gov Brewer's stated intent .....

“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.’”

 

[MeeMie]

Once again, the OBAMA administration bucks the checks and balances of law.


Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.

“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.

 

[cjh]

You said ...

"Looks like the Court said that they cannot tell whether it is constitutional until they see how it is applied."


Just the opposite is true ... the point the loonies are trying to make is that the application of the law would prove it unconstitutional. However, the justices said that there was no conflict with the constitution, nor federal law, and that it would have to be proven unconstitutional (not constitutional) ... today's ruling has already verified that the government failed their constitutionality challenge:

Kennedy wrote for the majority that the court could not assume the law would conflict with federal law, and as a result the United States cannot prevail in its constitutionality challenge .




And the spin goes on ....

May I refer you, once again, to Gov Brewer's stated intent .....

“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.’”

So? Kennedy and the MAJORITY said its meaning is uncertain and that its ultimate fate depended on Arizona's interpretation and application of the law.

Are you saying Justice Kennedy is loony?

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Isn't the constitutionality of the provision a dead point giving that state has no way to in-force it anyway?

"Give me your papers!?"

"I just swam across the Rio and do not have any"

"Ok, be on your way"

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Isn't the constitutionality of the provision a dead point giving that state has no way to in-force it anyway?

"Give me your papers!?"

"I just swam across the Rio and do not have any"

"Ok, be on your way"

LMFAO spell check fail.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

LMFAO spell check fail.

yep,,,fucking POS I-pad