Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
So I've been sitting here poolside in Cabo, madly catching up on all the Ricochet I missed during my trip down here and refreshing Twitter constantly for updates on whether the Supreme Court ruling on health care was coming out today.
(Side notes: Mosquitoes are intense in the hours before sunrise. Intense. I'm apparently in a backyard that is very conducive to bird romance. And I dreamt all last night that the Obamacare ruling came out today.)
But the Obamacare ruling did not come out today. I find it absolutely hilarious how the Court is waiting to release the opinion. Who says these justices don't have a sense of humor? And given who wrote the other opinions, many SCOTUS observers say that it looks like Chief Justice Roberts will be writing the opinion on health care. We did get some interesting decisions, however. And on any other day, they would be pretty significant.
Justice Kagan wrote majority opinion in 5-4 ruling holding that the Eighth Amendment forbids sentencing juvenile offenders to life imprisonment without parole.
The court reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend funds to advocate for or against electoral issues. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.
And for the third case, Arizona, here's how the Wall Street Journal puts it:
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough-immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment; make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.
I don't know if that ruling gives both sides something to cheer about or both sides something to be upset about.
But either way, a big day in decisions from the Supreme Court.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
That seems like it could be really bad news, that Justice Roberts is writing the opinion. Maybe he did what liberals were urging him to do, and joined with the liberals so he could write the opinion.
Mar '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
I'd say the central necessary part of the law was the status check, and that was upheld... but the question is, by striking down the other three parts, does that make the status check useless? I'd say so. All you can do is report them to the Feds, who aren't going to do anything. The other measures were practical attempts to prevent illegals from benefiting from being here. Take those away, and as long as they can get in, they're basically in the clear.
Was Kennedy the swing vote?
Jun '10
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
I guess you can inquire about immigration status, as long as it's just to know in which language to say "have a nice day."
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
If it's Roberts, it could be a mess, that's for sure. I will say that I haven't been this intrigued about a SCOTUS decision in years. And again, you have to love how they're playing us.
Jan '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
I know this to be an apples to oranges comparison -- and not truly knowing where Mollie stands on immigration policy -- I nonetheless find it ironical to be writing about a supposed* issue with foreigners in the United States while vacationing in Mexico.
*I write supposed because I don't see much of an issue if U.S. immigration policy were relaxed to allow more people to come here legally.
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 4:59pmRe: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
LowcountryJoe: I know this to be an apples to oranges comparison -- and not truly knowing where Mollie stands on immigration policy -- I nonetheless find it ironical to be writing about a supposed* issue with foreigners in the United States while vacationing in Mexico.
*I write supposed because I don't see much of an issue if U.S. immigration policy were relaxed to allow more people to come here legally. · 8 minutes ago
My own view is that immigration provides many benefits to this country. I do think, however, that a welfare state combined with open immigration is a recipe for trouble. My in-laws have become Mexican citizens, which I find intriguing.
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
I should add that my own bias is that states should generally be left alone to handle their own affairs -- and I say that whether they're doing things wisely or unwisely. I don't like how much the federal government controls state affairs.
May '12
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
I think the immigration law ruling is probably telling for what mess they are going to unleash regarding healthcare.
So we can check immigration status, but if it is found that someone is violating the law, law enforcement can't do anything about it - that seems logical?
I guess it is still against the law to hire illegal immigrants, but it is just fine for them the keep applying for jobs and jeopardize the employers trying to find honest help?
I am no constitutional lawyer, but this seems like a bunch of politicized hacks making a tough situation much worse and creating an endless stream of future cases on the same topic.
Mar '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
That's what I'm afraid of... that instead of settling things one way or the other, it'll be this confusing mishmash.
Jan '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
[/liked]
I agree. But then again I'm a fan of this country's first constitution and actually prefer it to this U.S. Constitution.
Dec '10
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
The problem I'm seeing is that what I've read of the decision so far makes sense (I can't wait to get to the dissents!). States are simply not allowed to frustrate the aims of the federal government under our system. However, when the aims of the federal government are contrary to the design and principles of the nation what are we to do? Our only recourse is the ballot box, and we've seen how well that works in practice.
Jan '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
LowcountryJoe: I know this to be an apples to oranges comparison -- and not truly knowing where Mollie stands on immigration policy -- I nonetheless find it ironical to be writing about a supposed* issue with foreigners in the United States while vacationing in Mexico.
*I write supposed because I don't see much of an issue if U.S. immigration policy were relaxed to allow more people to come here legally.
My own view is that immigration provides many benefits to this country. I do think, however, that a welfare state combined with open immigration is a recipe for trouble. My in-laws have become Mexican citizens, which I find intriguing.
I'm not in favor of entirely open; I think there should be health screenings and background checks and the cost of those borne by those who wish to come here. The welfare state, though, is troubling. I'd like to see a breakdown of percentages on the groups of people receiving welfare benefits...perhaps the outrage might show our fellow naturally born citizens as the chief beneficiaries of the productive class -- some of whom are immigrants paying for Social Security that they'll never receive!
Edited on June 25, 2012 at 5:28pmMay '10
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
LowcountryJoe
But then again I'm a fan of this country's first constitution and actually prefer it to this U.S. Constitution.
Then perhaps you would like to start a post in the Member's Feed to explain why the first one failed.
Mar '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Aaron Miller
LowcountryJoe
But then again I'm a fan of this country's first constitution and actually prefer it to this U.S. Constitution.
Then perhaps you would like to start a post in the Member's Feed to explain why the first one failed. · 6 minutes ago
My own short take on that is that a few major adjustments would have fixed the AOC and made government strong enough to do the necessary work of national government. I won't call the Constitution overkill... I largely agree with its provisions... but reading history, I also don't think there's much of a doubt that some guys.... Alexander Hamilton in particular... used the AOC's shortcomings as a bogeyman in hopes of a government with wide-ranging authority. As much as I criticize Jefferson, if it wasn't for men like him, the new federal model would have been very Woodrow Wilson-like in its power over the individual. If it was up to guys like Hamilton, we'd have essentially been a royal government without a crown.
Feb '12
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Just scanned the Arizona opinion, and in my view I think the conclusion is reasonable. Stats should not be permitted to pile on punishments in areas where the federal government has a comprehensive scheme of enforcement (even when that enforcement ebbs and flows depending on the executive). The ability to check the immigration status is the important part of the law, and that was upheld. The criminal (on top of immigration status) element among illegals in Arizona is shockingly high, and the State will be able to put into prison those offenders. Presumably, when you arrest someone and check his immigration status you're already putting him in prison anyway.
In short, not much to see here.
Feb '12
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Why are people down on Roberts writing the opinion? If you were chief justice and got to choose who wrote the opinion, wouldn't you want to write this one?
The author of the opinion isn't chosen until the core of the ruling is formed anyway. In order for the law to be invalidated, Roberts would have to be on the majority side. What Roberts opinions give pause to those of you concerned?
Besides, at least people aren't speculating it's a sure thing Kennedy writes the opinion, right?
The decision will be what it will be. (In fact, tantalizingly, it is what it is.)
Seriously, though---what's the concern about Roberts?
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
You're on to something there. If an Arizona police officer can inquire into your immigration status, but then can't do anything about it, why inquire at all?
I suppose the best he can do if not arrest is to report to Homeland Security.
Mar '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Shane McGuire:
Seriously, though---what's the concern about Roberts? · 2 minutes ago
There are suspicions that he's becoming a Nixonian-type squish... nominally conservative when first appointed, but "evolving " left as time goes on.
Mar '11
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Tommy De Seno
I suppose the best he can do if not arrest is to report to Homeland Security. · 2 minutes ago
Yup. Who will then do precisely... nothing. I work with some local cops, and they tell me that they don't report individual or small groups of illegals, because unless it's a major bust... a lot working at a meat packing plant, for instance... feds just get annoyed and tell them not to bother them over "small stuff".
Feb '12
Re: Supreme Court Affirms Arizona In Part, Strikes Down In Part
Tommy De Seno
You're on to something there. If an Arizona police officer can inquire into your immigration status, but then can't do anything about it, why inquire at all?
I suppose the best he can do if not arrest is to report to Homeland Security. · 1 minute ago
Quite right, Tommy. But under the state law that was partially struck down today, they would only be able to (1) report it to the feds and (2) prosecute the alien for a misdemeanor, on top of whatever other crime he was arrested for.
I bet the misdemeanor they were seeking for illegals could be back-doored some manner. Let's say there were a law that said for any drug offense where the drugs were shown to have originated in another country the penalty is some years longer than it otherwise would be.
In the end though, incarcerating illegals is a terribly expensive remedy. It may be what the people want, but sheesh, that's gotta be costly.