1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration Law

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    So, why was their argument so poor today? Isn't it a winning argument?

    They would have received a failing grade in any mock court, in any law school. Embarrassing.
     
  2. PCLoadLetter

    PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

    So, are you arguing that it didn't win in the lower courts?

    Or are you arguing that your legal knowledge is far greater than that of the panel of judges on a federal appeal court, and you see the terrible holes they did not?

    Again, I don't know why the argument went over poorly today. But it strikes me as beyond ridiculous to write off a case as "frivolous," "embarrassing," and "a failing grade in any mock court" when every court has agreed with it so far, and the Supreme Court -- though seemingly quite skeptical -- has yet to rule.
     
  3. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    God knows what Alito and Thomas would do if Scalia wasn't there. They'd actually have to think for themselves.
     
  4. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    You can't underestimate that one reason statehouse fucksticks are coming with laws like jamming transvaginal ultrasounds into illegal immigrants and whatnot is the hope that the Supreme Court, this Supreme Court, will approve of it when no else (but themselves) will. If Obama gets elected to a second term, and Scalia happens to drop dead in his office, then these laws stop because legislators know they'll never get a Supreme Court blessing. Of course, in this scenario, the confirmation hearings for Scalia's replacement will make every contentious process combined look like a lovefest, given the way the 5-4 swing will go.
     
  5. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Actually there's some decent polling data out there (Quinnipiac, April 20) that suggests Hispanics favor the Supremes upholding the major provisions of the law, 45-43, while I presume some sort of (diminished from 2008) majority of that same group would tell pollsters they'll vote for Mr. Obama again; in the same poll, Hispanics favored upholding Obamacare by a 52-35 margin. It's worth speculating that Hispanics here legally see the upholding of both laws as an outcome that would serve their own self interest in some specific fashion. I have my own opinion about that, but I'll leave you to speculate how the Arizona law might figure into that matrix of self interest.

    Blacks favored upholding the immigration law 46-40 and I presume their self-interest is more obvious, and it's safe to assume certain things about black voting patterns in 2012.

    The average Democrat can be found on the wrong side of the larger public opinion on this issue, to the tune of 39-49, which suggests that some of the Conventional Wisdom about the immigration issue is lacking. As is often the case.

    Polling of reporters and editorial page editors would surely produce an even wider disparity on the issue.
     
  6. Stitch

    Stitch Active Member

    Are you surprised the board media critic thnks he has a better handle on constitutional law than federal judges? I'm concerned he's wasting his talents at convenience stores rather than saving our country.
     
  7. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    SB 1070 is theater, of course.

    Arizona has now spent several million dollars defending a law they never appropriated funds to enforce in the first place.

    [Sad trombone slide here]
     
  8. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Hey -- Larry Tribe, those of us in the law business call it a moot court. Mock jury or mock trial. Moot court.

    I'll hang up and listen to your oral argument grades for the rest of the 2011-12 docket.
     
  9. [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 15, 2014
  10. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    That's tactical. You challenge first on the ground that is least dangerous as precedent if you lose.
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I get that. But, people are predicting some kind of increased "voter enthusiasm" if the law is upheld.

    This is based on the idea that the Court will have upheld a racist law. That the Court is political, and refuses to strike down a clearly racist law.

    But, that's not even before the Court.
     
  12. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    People don't realize that, though. If there is anything that voters absolutely don't understand, it is how the Supreme Court decides cases. Part of this is because of how the decisions are covered in the news media - nuance falls away, perhaps relegated to a sentence or two buried deep in most articles.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page