SCOTUS: Arizona Immigration Law

[YankeeFan]

Healthcare may have gotten more coverage, but this is another big one.

Nytimes.com headline: In Arguments, Justices Appear Sympathetic to Contentious Part of Arizona Immigration Law

 

[Mizzougrad96]

So this is going to be today's brawl? :D

 

[Bob Cook]

Given that we now have more Mexicans leaving the country than staying, and that there was scant evidence they was taking our jorbs when they were here (certainly, nobody else wants to pick crops in Alabama and Georgia), I can see only one reason to persist with pushing these laws: for political gain by riling up the scared Anglos, and by "encouraging" possibly Democratic-leaning Latinos to get the hell out of Dodge.

As it's turning out, the Mexican immigration numbers are, for many areas, the economic canary in the coalmine.

EDIT: I know this is no Starman, but I can't compete on that level of genius.

 

[Stitch]

I was hoping North Dakota would pass an immigration bill aimed at Canadians.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Given that we now have more Mexicans leaving the country than staying, and that there was scant evidence they was taking our jorbs when they were here (certainly, nobody else wants to pick crops in Alabama and Georgia), I can see only one reason to persist with pushing these laws: for political gain by riling up the scared Anglos, and by "encouraging" possibly Democratic-leaning Latinos to get the hell out of Dodge.

As it's turning out, the Mexican immigration numbers are, for many areas, the economic canary in the coalmine.

EDIT: I know this is no Starman, but I can't compete on that level of genius.

Last I checked, you have to be here legally to vote.

You are right about the mexicans leaving, but I don't think anyone expects that to continue longterm. If it does, illegal immigration will be the least of our problems.

My argument for this law is that unless you have lived in Arizona, California, Texas, you don't fully know what a huge problem this is, especially in border cities.

I've never been a "They're going to take our jobs!" guy. because as it is pointed out, US citizens aren't exactly lining up to pick peaches and plums in Northern California.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says, on this and on Obamacare.

 

[J-School Blue]

My argument for this law is that unless you have lived in Arizona, California, Texas, you don't fully know what a huge problem this is, especially in border cities.

I live in Arizona, and have lived on the border itself, and this is absolutely true.

That said SB1070 has not, to my mind, done anything to address real issues. It's red meat legislation, a lot of sound and fury that gets people fired up but accomplishes nothing. My hope is after the election's over (and to a large extent regardless of who ends up in the White House) they can revive comprehensive immigration reform, because this nonsense demeans the real problem. It's an embarrassing distraction and I hope it dies.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Healthcare may have gotten more coverage, but this is another big one.

Nytimes.com headline: In Arguments, Justices Appear Sympathetic to Contentious Part of Arizona Immigration Law

Isn't the whole argument just over federal preemption of state law, not the more contentious civil liberties stuff?

 

[jackfinarelli]

I was hoping North Dakotoa would pass an immigration bill aimed at Canadians.

The bill is pending in committee. Perhaps a vote next week?

 

[YankeeFan]

Healthcare may have gotten more coverage, but this is another big one.

Nytimes.com headline: In Arguments, Justices Appear Sympathetic to Contentious Part of Arizona Immigration Law

Isn't the whole argument just over federal preemption of state law, not the more contentious civil liberties stuff?

Right.

From the Times:

Should the court uphold any part of the law, immigration groups are likely to challenge it based on an argument not before that court on Wednesday — that the law discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background.

Indeed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear that the case, like last month’s arguments over President Obama’s health care law, was about the allocation of state and federal power.

“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” the chief justice asked Mr. Verrilli, who agreed.

Should the court uphold most or all of the Arizona law or strike down the heart of the health care law, it would represent a political blow to President Obama in the final stretch of the campaign season. The health care decision is also expected by June.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/considering-arizona-immigration-law-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html?hp&pagewanted=all

Also not sure why Mitt would be afraid of the SCOTUS ruling in Arizona's favor. The vote on this may very well be lopsided.

The administration lawyers again looked unprepared. They didn't have answers to the Justices questions.

If they rule that the law is in line with Federal Law, instead of contradicting it, it just makes the administration look foolish for challenging it on those grounds.

The President is supposed to be a "Constitutional Law Professor", and he's in danger of having his clock cleaned in two high profile cases.

That will just play into Romney's narrative that Obama is a "nice guy" who is "in over his head".

 

[Stitch]

Calling Obama a nice guy doesn't win over the person with the "Don't re-nig" bumper sticker.

 

[YankeeFan]

Calling Obama a nice guy doesn't win over the person with the "Don't re-nig" bumper sticker.

I'm sure you thought you were making a point with this post.

You'll forgive me if it eluded me.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Healthcare may have gotten more coverage, but this is another big one.

Nytimes.com headline: In Arguments, Justices Appear Sympathetic to Contentious Part of Arizona Immigration Law

Isn't the whole argument just over federal preemption of state law, not the more contentious civil liberties stuff?

Right.

From the Times:

Should the court uphold any part of the law, immigration groups are likely to challenge it based on an argument not before that court on Wednesday — that the law discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background.

Indeed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear that the case, like last month’s arguments over President Obama’s health care law, was about the allocation of state and federal power.

“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” the chief justice asked Mr. Verrilli, who agreed.

Should the court uphold most or all of the Arizona law or strike down the heart of the health care law, it would represent a political blow to President Obama in the final stretch of the campaign season. The health care decision is also expected by June.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us/considering-arizona-immigration-law-justices-are-again-in-political-storm.html?hp&pagewanted=all

Also not sure why Mitt would be afraid of the SCOTUS ruling in Arizona's favor. The vote on this may very well be lopsided.

The administration lawyers again looked unprepared. They didn't have answers to the Justices questions.

If they rule that the law is in line with Federal Law, instead of contradicting it, it just makes the administration look foolish for challenging it on those grounds.

The President is supposed to be a "Constitutional Law Professor", and he's in danger of having his clock cleaned in two high profile cases.

Not in danger on health care.

 

[YankeeFan]

Not in danger on health care.

We'll see.

If they win, it won't be because the Administration argued the case well.

They've been embarrassed in oral arguments twice now.

 

[Zeke12]

It isn't too difficult.

The law isn't popular with Arizona's Hispanic population.

If it's affirmed, it hands Obama campaign an issue.

 

[Dick Whitman]

He taught Con Law, and I'm sure he knows about every area of Con Law at least generally as a trained lawyer and successful former law student, but I think he taught civil rights like the Reconstruction amendments. I don't think it's fair to snidely call him a "Constitutional Law professor" as if he should be a scholar in every single facet of Con Law. You don't just teach "Constitutional Law" any more than a quarterback plays defensive tackle.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

It isn't too difficult.

The law isn't popular with Arizona's Hispanic population.

If it's affirmed, it hands the Obama campaign an issue.

.

. . . in what is currently a decidedly-swingy state.

 

[YankeeFan]

It isn't too difficult.

The law isn't popular with Arizona's Hispanic population.

If it's affirmed, it hands the Obama campaign an issue.

"Popular". Jesus.

I didn't think I'd get to use this line twice, on two different threads, just minutes apart:

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.

Hispanics are too ****ing stupid to understand the legal arguments and decision. They just know they don't like it, and will take it out on the Republican nominee, right?

Maybe, they'll think that the Administration acted cowardly, by challenging the law only on these grounds.

They didn't even challenge it as racist.

 

[Zeke12]

Hispanics in Arizona are going to vote for Obama.

This would just give them another reason.

You seem to live in a very strange world, man.

 

[YankeeFan]

He taught Con Law, and I'm sure he knows about every area of Con Law at least generally as a trained lawyer and successful former law student, but I think he taught civil rights like the Reconstruction amendments. I don't think it's fair to snidely call him a "Constitutional Law professor" as if he should be a scholar in every single facet of Con Law. You don't just teach "Constitutional Law" any more than a quarterback plays defensive tackle.

We've been through this before. We both know he never held the title of "Constitutional Law Professor".

But, if he and his supporters want to play up these credentials, then they should own it.

If someone is acclaimed as a great head football coach, you wouldn't say that he doesn't know special teams because he's primarily an offensive guy. He's expected to know it all.

If he's a Constitutional expert, his lawyers shouldn't be getting their clocks cleaned on consecutive high profile cases.

They looked unprepared two times in a row. He can't find better lawyers? They can't make better arguments?

And, it doesn't reflect on him?

 

[Zeke12]

You've got six months to accept that Romney's probably gonna lose this election.

Clock's ticking.