Down Goes Arizona's Immigration Law

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Based solely on reading the excerpts, I am heartened that the majority at least recognized the basic principle of federal preemption with respect to something as basic as regulating immigration (preemption meaning if there is a federal standard/law, states cannot impose a different standard and are therefore "preempted" from enacting a contrary law). Its sad but I used to rely upon the SCOTUS (and federal courts of appeals) making such basic decisions, but now with the politicization of the law, I hold my breath.

I give credit to Kennedy for being a pragmatic centrist and to Roberts for not going political.

As for dissenters Scalia, Thomas and Alito? Go back and study Con Law 101 again, please.

 

Wow I did not know that this ruling came down today.

 

Thank you for starting this thread so the board can finally discuss this.

 

Board members must have been busy today. This seems like it would be a hot board topic.

 

I myself go to phonesexhoneys for such.

 

Scalia's dissent is ridiculous. More lie to the "strict constructionist" BS.

 

I don't know why the United States uses such and archaic and outdated system for determining ultimate judicial decisions.

The Supreme Court needs to come out from behind its walls of secrecy and install live television cameras in its chambers.

Then, each justice should sing or dance his or her way through a series of challenges.

The American citizenry could call into a switchboard and vote a justice off the panel each week.

The one judge remaining would then decide all of the cases heard by the court during that session.

Of course I'm hoping that Antonin Scalia has at least three left feet and can't carry a tune in a bucket.

 

A smokescreen. A preemptive bone thrown to the left so they can maintain "we don't automatically take our marching orders from the right."

Even though they do.

 

SCOTUS pretty much split the baby, which I think it will do also with health care. Both sides can claim something.

It's not settled yet whether the one provision it let stand (allowing police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws) will stand under further litigation. There are pre-emptive lawsuits filed already that allege this will lead to racial profiling. Other suits will undoubtedly be filed once this law goes into effect and begins to be enforced.

So we haven't heard the last of SB 1070 by a long shot.

 

I prefer three-year-old breaking obits myself.

 

pigtailsandpenises.net

 

In his dissent, Scalia cites fugitive slave laws.

Would that I were making that up.