» News
Everyone is Claiming Victory on this Surgical Arizona Ruling
Court strikes down much of Arizona immigration law
This morning, the Court handed down its decision in Arizona v. United States, the case involving Arizona’s attempt to supplement federal immigration enforcement through several state law measures. The Court reviewed four provisions of the statute, holding that three are preempted by federal law. Section 2(B) – which requires the police to check the immigration status of detained individuals before releasing them – is the only provision that potentially survived.
From the great GATEWAY PUNDIT
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer: Scotus Ruling a Victory!
.
From Little Green Dumbbells-
Right Wing Media Desperately Deny Reality of Supreme Court Immigration Decision
The spin has never been more obvious
.
And from the Raw Story -
Supreme Court guts most of Arizona’s anti-immigration law
.
Left Coast Dan
June 25th, 2012
Yahoo news said that the upheld part was a 5-3 decision. Yeah – three conservatives were the nays, because they wanted to uphold more of the law. Reality is that it was an 8-0 vote on the key part.
Stranded in Sonoma
June 25th, 2012
The three sections that were overturned could easily be considered as a major victory for the proglodytes because those three sections dealt with enforcing immigration laws by the state.
The court ruled, and rightly so, that enforcement of immigration laws is the purview of the federal gov’t. The section making it a crime to work in the country without authorization was struck down because Congress didn’t make that a federal crime, which it has the sole power to do. The only section left intact was the one that allowed state law enforcement to check on immigration status and hand over those violaters to federal officials. That is in keeping with federal statutes. If a police officer detains someone shown to be wanted for bank robbery in another state, they would turn him over to the FBI because bank robbery is a federal offense. This is what the court is saying in relation to immigration laws.
All in all, this is the correct ruling. We may not like it, we may not agree with it, we know for a fact that the federal gov’t has abrogated this power to the states due to inaction and lack of enforcement on their part, but, the ruling is in keeping with the constitution and the power delegated by it to Congress. And isn’t that what we keep harping about when it comes to Barry?
Toaster
June 25th, 2012
But now Banana Republic Barry and Skunky Napolitano are suspending existing immigration agreements the Feds had with Arizona. Feds will only respond to AZ immigration status checks when someone has a felony on his or her record.
Tim
June 25th, 2012
Further proof (if any were needed) that our gov’t is waging war against us.
If the Fed. Gov’t fails to fulfill its duties, it is incumbent upon the States to assert themselves.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Truthsayer
June 25th, 2012
If the Federal Government continues to refuse to enforce the law, others will do so, be it the State’s or Vigilantes! We are at the teetering point!
norman einstein
June 25th, 2012
Rush proposed a possible theory…he just put it out there…
What if the Supremes ruled mostly in favor of the Feds on THIScase, because they plan to deep-six Hellcare?
It would help to make them look unbiased, when the SHTF.
MaryfromMarin
June 25th, 2012
I wondered that myself, @Norman Einstein. I didn’t have the chance to hear Rush today, but I’m glad that’s running through his mind. His percentages are very, very good.
Ricky
June 25th, 2012
So, tell me..what part of “Illegal” “Aliens” Is not understood by the supreme court? what a bunch of spineless – limp wristed idiots!
Ricky
June 25th, 2012
“prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.”
Define “MINOR”.
By definition, they are here ILLEGALLY. Hence, they are called ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Unneutral
June 25th, 2012
I thought the states lived under the umbrella of protection from the federal government. Where the feds fail to realize an injustice being thrust upon a state,(especially when that injustice is politically motivated), then that state is no longer being protected and should be allowed to at least defend itself. If nothing else, the feds should reimburse said state for its monetary losses.
Callmelennie
June 25th, 2012
The three sections that were struck down did not violate anybody’s rights, which is what the liberal douchebags were atttempting to say. They were struck down before they were pre-empted by federal law; laws which Obama is refusing to enforce.
That’s the problem here — Obama is not “taking care to see that the laws are faithfully executed” in violation of his duty under the Constitution. And the only remedy for that is an impeachment proceeding, or shit canning him in November
Finally, the section everyone was pointing at was upheld
I Luv Bacon
June 25th, 2012
My theory is they are gonna slice and dice the healthcare mandate and leave the bulk to be shoved up our butts(the ones who pay taxes).
Tim
June 25th, 2012
My guess is that the ruling pivoted on some fine pin-point of law while not addressing the Fed’s politically motivated failure to protect the citizens of AZ.
Or – they could be a gaggle of corrupt politically connected lawyers who enjoy wearing black dresses.
Wyatt, Insensitive Jerk
June 25th, 2012
I think the Supreme Court ruling in this case was correct under Federal preemption principles. However, the point that people need to be harping on is that the Federal government, and in particular the Obama administration is refusing to enforce this nation’s immigration laws. This is why Arizona took the steps that it did.
The “immigration problem” is conceptually not difficult to solve. First, come up with some sort of immigration policy that is acceptable. This may involve increasing the number of immigrants, creating some sort of special status for migrant workers – my purpose isn’t to advocate any particular immigration policy, but to note that this country apparently needs one. Second, enforce that policy. This selective enforcement of immigration laws is not acceptable.
The final matter to consider is what to do about those illegals currently in the country. Contrary to liberal viewpoints, this is not the first thing to consider, but the last part of an immigration policy after devising a national immigration policy and then enforcing that policy. I would imagine that some sort of amnesty will be inevitable because it would seem logistically impossible to deport 15 million people. But deal with this problem after either deciding to enforce the laws we have, or devising a new immigration policy.
wildman
June 25th, 2012
it appears that the supremes say the the states may not pre-empt federal law? since when does the constitution say the federal government can preempt state law?
old_oaks
June 25th, 2012
@ Wyatt, Instead of amnesty, devise a pathway toward US Citizenship without retribution of earlier illegality. If the necessary steps aren’t taken, in process or otherwise, then deport the illegal. This would weed out the bad guys along with those who choose not to assimilate once citizenship is gained.
Morbo the Newsmonster
June 25th, 2012
@Tim: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
We respectfully disagree. Well, on your behalf, at any rate. We’ll be safe in our protected neighborhoods, but you lot can and should die. Your presence is neither requested nor desired on *our* planet. Well, not beyond the minimum number of drones necessary to provide us with servants and lackeys.
The Doktor
June 25th, 2012
Fellow iOTWders!! Do not be fooled!!!
“Morbo the Newsmonster” is actually Lrrr, the ruler of the planet Omicron Persei 8!! He has been using fake screen names and Internet blogs to threaten us helpless Earthlings. Be not afraid!!! We have outed him and KNOW WHERE HE LIVES!!! (Or, at least the general area of that sector of the galaxy.)
Knowledge is the best weapon!!
Wyatt, Insensitive Jerk
June 25th, 2012
@Old Oaks: I am not advocating amnesty or anything else at this point – other than to either enforce the current immigration laws or come up with a new policy that will be enforced. This current system of selective enforcement is not workable.
I was just observing that logistically, it seems prohibitively expensive or impossible to deport the estimated 15 million illegals now in the country. Automatically granting them citizenship does not seem equitable either; perhaps there is an “in between” solution. However, the underlying problem needs to be fixed (perhaps booting Obama out of the White House will be a start).