Arizona Immigration Law Likely to Be Upheld

[Rupert Pupkin]

Not only does it look like much of Arizona's immigration law will be upheld by the US Supreme Court, it looks like even the liberal members of the Court may vote to uphold the central part of the law. So much for the argument some people on this board made about all the laws being unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us...m.html?_r=2&hp

Unintended consequences of this will be that BO will overwhelmingly get the Hispanic vote in November.

[Riot]

Can we let them decide before celebration and dismissal of opponents?

Kagan has recused herself, there could be a tie, which then upholds the lower courts ruling against the law.

A 4-4 vote did not seem at all likely on Wednesday, however, as majorities of the justices leaned toward blocking the criminal sanctions while allowing the "papers please" and warrantless arrest provisions to go into effect, provided detainees are not held longer than they would be in the absence of S.B. 1070.

While that outcome would be a partial victory for Arizona and the states that have followed its lead, such a ruling would also leave those laws vulnerable to potential and currently pending challenges by civil rights groups on behalf of individuals who allege violations of equal protection and due process protections, among other constitutional injuries.

[dellinger63]

Amazing how Obama's lawyer is being accused of dropping the ball when arguing Obamacare and the constitutionality of enforcing established immigration laws when in effect he's being asked to argue 2 plus 2 equals 5 and the world is flat.

[Danzig]

for one, what does “basic notions of fairness” (said by obama) have to do with anything? especially anything regarding legality? we're now supposed to decide what's constitutional based on fairness? and who exactly will decide what's fair? lol and to think a person supposedly versed in constitutional law said that.

and what about this:

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace. ( if it's commonplace, why is it an issue? if many jurisdictions already do this, why is it an issue that it's being made mandatory? and if it's common practice, the only thing being changed is making it happen every time, how does being made mandatory suddenly mean it's not constitutional?)

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law required merely that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and left enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not,” he said. (good point)



“So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. (excellent question)



and everyone keep in mind, part of obamacare is the requirement that it not cover those here illegally. so every state will have to have access to databases that will help indicate if someone is here illegally. will the administration than argue against it's own rules? lol now, that's a conundrum, isn't it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for one, what does “basic notions of fairness” (said by obama) have to do with anything? especially anything regarding legality? we're now supposed to decide what's constitutional based on fairness? and who exactly will decide what's fair? lol and to think a person supposedly versed in constitutional law said that.

and what about this:

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace. ( if it's commonplace, why is it an issue? if many jurisdictions already do this, why is it an issue that it's being made mandatory? and if it's common practice, the only thing being changed is making it happen every time, how does being made mandatory suddenly mean it's not constitutional?)

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law required merely that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and left enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not,” he said. (good point)



“So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. (excellent question)



and everyone keep in mind, part of obamacare is the requirement that it not cover those here illegally. so every state will have to have access to databases that will help indicate if someone is here illegally. will the administration than argue against it's own rules? lol now, that's a conundrum, isn't it?

The arguments that Obama's lawyer made were so absurd that even Sotomayor told the lawyer, "You can see it’s not selling very well—why don’t you try to come up with something else?." She went on to say, "I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.?