Supreme Court Appears To Favor AZ's Immigration Law

[Wrong Element]

The Fraud is really taking it in the shorts these days

Bump for miles!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

SJC proves yet again why the US is a great country

It was a very good ruling. Three provisions struck down that were overreaching ill-advised and just silly - and upheld the one that is the core of the issue: Why would it be unconstitutional for local law enforcement to enforce the law?

Now, there are many ways to enforce the law that could be unconstitutional, so we will wait and see.

I wonder of the people of Arizona will be able to constitutionally execute on upholding their own law. My guess, while I am sincerely hoping that they they will succeed, is that the extremists will make them fail.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tonight on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart opened with this story, and, with an air of confused exasperation, ran back-to-back clips calling this a win for Arizona, a defeat for Arizona, a win/defeat for Obama, etc. But, an appellate-court decision is quite often that way -- each side wins on some points and loses on some points; and the media, always feeling pressed to boil down a complex story to its simplest salient points to fit limited airtime or newshole in a way comprehensible to average and below-average viewers/readers, are at a loss as to whom to call the winner. It was that way with the Bakke decision back in 1978.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MeeMie]

Jan Brewer Slams Obama For Showing “Utter Disregard” For Arizona
After Canceling ICE Cooperation With State In Wake Of SCOTUS Ruling


Hours after the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of Arizona's immigration law, President Obama "demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people," Gov. Jan Brewer announced on Monday.

"Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement," which allows Arizona police to partner with the federal government in enforcing immigration law.

It's no coincidence, Brewer said, noting that while 68 law enforcement bodies in 24 states have 287(g) agreements with the federal government, the only agreement eliminated on Monday was the one with Arizona -- "the state that happens to be on the front lines of America's fight against illegal immigration," she said.



"We are on our own, apparently," Brewer said in the statement posted on her website.

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised," she continued. "The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn -- downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration."



According to the Associated Press, if federal agents decline to pick up illegal aliens, there is no way for Arizona to force federal authorities to detain them. Local police will have to let them go unless they're suspected of committing a crime (other than being in the country illegally) that would require them to be arrested and jailed, Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who specializes in immigration law, told the Associated Press.

Brewer noted that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security credits the 287(g) program with identifying nearly 300,000 potentially-removable aliens nationwide since 2006. Moreover, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained and certified more than 1,500 state and local officers to assist in the enforcement of immigration law, including many in Arizona.

“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans," Brewer said. "This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”

The Homeland Security Department describes the 287(g) program as a "force multiplier," which allows trained officers from local jurisdictions to carry out "smart, effective immigration enforcement efforts aligned with ICE priorities."

"Coordinating with our state and local partners is important to smart and effective enforcement of our immigration laws," said Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in an October 2009 news release. "These new agreements promote public safety by prioritizing the identification and removal of dangerous criminal aliens and ensure consistency and stronger federal oversight of state and local immigration law enforcement efforts across the nation."



On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Section 2(B) of Arizona’s immigration law (SB 1070) -- the part requiring police officers to check the immigration status of all individuals detained for other crimes -- is constitutional.

 

[Peregrinator]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yawn

The local Sheriffs down there say they're going to dump illegal aliens on ICE's doorstep whether they like it or not. Nothing is going to change in how they enforce AZ law or how they protect their citizens.

When the citizens of AZ realize this how upset do you think they will be at their politicians for wasting tax dollars regarding this law?

 

[KingOrfeo]

E.J. Dionne: Justice Scalia must resign.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

"War" Talk Out of the Mouths of AZ Congressmen...

Ariz. congressmen: Administration has declared war against Arizona

Calling Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s rescission of 287(g) Task Force agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies “the Administration’s declaration of war against Arizona,” three Arizona congressmen are calling on ICE Director John Morton to reconsider the decision.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/26/ariz-congressmen-administration-has-declared-war-against-arizona/

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Tell Dionne to strike a blow for truth and kill himself.

Every time I see your avatar I remember you got teabagged by KenKraft and I just can't stop laughing.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Tell Dionne to strike a blow for truth and kill himself.

Here's his blow for truth:

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“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,” Scalia said. “The president has said 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 laws. 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 federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

If Scalia does resign, we'll all be carrying reinforced pigshit-resistant umbrellas. But at least we may hope, and not unreasonably hope, that the 76-year-old creep does not live to the end of Obama's second term. It's too bad Roberts is only 57 and Alito 62.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/26/ariz-congressmen-administration-has-declared-war-against-arizona/

"War" is a word that really should not be devalued like that.