E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS“In a split decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of a tough Arizona immigration law, but struck down other sections,” msnbc.com’s Tom Curry wrote yesterday.
But as msnbc.com’s Michael O’Brien wrote, both sides saw what they wanted to see in the ruling: “Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally. President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.”
USA Today: “The Supreme Court's split ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law did nothing to settle the debate — providing little clarity on how far states can go to police their borders and solidifying the topic as a key election-year issue.”
Politico’s Gerstein puts Chief Justice John Roberts in the spotlight: “Roberts pledged during his Supreme Court hearings to be a mere umpire of the law. But as a legacy-defining decision nears, Roberts is emerging as the court’s most intriguing player. … While much of the early attention focused on swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, many court watchers predict Roberts will be the architect of the ruling. To a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts’s stewardship of the high court.”
Leave a Comment:
Not much of a split decision. The Supreme Court basically held that federal law permits police officers to conduct immigration checks as part of a routine record check so Arizona can require its officers to take advantage of that federal authorization, but only as long as it does not extend the detention of a suspect. However, Arizona can't pass a statute on immigration that is not authorized by federal law.
What is amazing, however, is how quickly Obama acted to thwart that key provision of Arizona law that was upheld by a unanimous vote of 8 to 0 !
Obama has again proved he is unwilling to enforce existing law if he does not like it. His orders for federal government to NOT COOPERATE in assisting with enforcement of this passed provision is both arrogasnt and self-serving !
Obama is pandering for the Latino vote and will let NOTHING stand in his way.
He isn't thwarting the provision. The Supreme Court merely found that the provision authorizing checking with the US government to find out what the government is going to do to somebody who has engaged in criminal conduct. Obama has said that the US will not deport somebody, under certain conditions, if they have not engaged in criminal conduct. By definition, anybody stopped for a crime is potentially engaging in criminal conduct.
All the Supreme Court Jesters need are those sticks with the bells on them. (The multi-crowned hats with bells would be nice, too.)
Did we not have a civil war about "State's Rights" back in the 1860's? Seems the Roberts court is about as smart as the Tawney Court was. Just ready to stir up trouble.
SCOTUS rejected 3 of the 4 laws....how is that a spilt decision. And they said they wanted the law they did allow, police asking for proof of citizenship if stopping someone for a reasonable reason, monitored very closely and left the door open for another challenge if it looks like AZ is conducting profiling.
I predict a challenge to the upheld law will come very quickly and it too will be overturned by SCOTUS.
These old guys are the problem.. its not 1958 ! They need to be thanked and booted out .No retirements No Benefits They have worked this gravy train some for 30+ years ..They now divide this country ..The cults no longer have the power they once had ..The people's belief's have evolved ..They realize the threat of hell or the terror terror terror no longer works to control the masses ..America has grown to hate the politicians and not trust anyone ! The people also realize that the only thing WAR does is line the pockets of the politicians who own the service company's with the NO BID CONTRACTS ! Also the politicians who take bribes from the major company's to keep a factory open in their districts. Building planes and jet engines that are no longer needed and bridges to nowhere on the taxpayers dime !
Scalia seems to be the most hostile anti-immigrant on the court... Funny, his Dad was an immigrant from Sicily... Guess he should have been sent back?
Not all immigrants enter the country illegally. To state the obvious.
Being a white male, I doubt that this law would ever affect me but I wonder if those Hispanics that live in Az. or those traveling through it that were born in this country will need to start carrying their birth certificate at all times.
I can see a mass exodus of all races from Az. Once they start losing all the lawsuits from racial profiling, Az. will have to raise massive amounts of revenue from somewhere and it's people will be the most logical place to start. All state and local fees will rise as well as taxes.
You mean anti-illegal immigrant there is a difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant which the media seems to try to confuse people about.
I thought we fought a civil war over this issue. Are we one nation, indivisible or 50 city states, each with it's own currency, disjointed laws that contradict each other, and discriminatory practices, or are we one country with liberty and justice for ALL? The very people who demand the recitation of the pledge, staunch subscription to the constitution etc. don't seem to understand the implications. Incidently, the Pledge of Allegience (that I refer to here) was originally composed by Bellamy who was a christian socialist and his brother was a utopian socialist. Also, the phrase "under God" was added to the original pledge during the Eisenhower administration. Arizona legally and morally belongs to Mexico.