Supreme Court justices indicate support for Arizona's immigration law
Supreme Court Immigration
Supporters of Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law rally in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, where the court held a hearing. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Tuulia Lowe
Tuulia Lowe protests against SB1070 and immigration deportations Wednesday, April 25, 2012, in San Francisco. Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)
Jan Brewer
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer speaks to reporters after the Supreme Court questioned Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, April 25, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Welcome to the discussion.
-
Current users sign in here.
14 comments:
Happening Now...
-
Tuesday 6/18/2013
-
Monday 6/17/2013
© Copyright 2013, East Valley Tribune, Tempe, AZ. [Terms of Use | Privacy Policy]
A Division of 10/13 Communications
ProFreedom Gal posted at 1:41 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
Should be all our states suing the fed govt. Certainly hope our supreme court actually declares for our rights - state and individual. They certainly can see how the majority of citizens feel about illegal immigration.
quietgardens posted at 1:39 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
There is a way to come to America, legally. We have to know who comes to America, especially after 9-11..
Rational Human posted at 12:50 pm on Tue, May 1, 2012.
Arizona's legislature passed the law two years ago. Gov. Jan Brewer signed it, and the ink on the darned thing was barely dry before the Obama administration hauled Arizona into court.
The statute allows, among other things, for Arizona law enforcement personnel to inquire about the immigration status of anyone legally stopped in the state.
This didn't sit well with liberals, many Democrats, so-called progressives, America's open-borders crowd -- who advocate open borders for anybody not white -- and those who think our immigration policy should be dictated by Mexico. The naysayers screamed racism, their first -- and, in many cases, last and only -- card in the deck.
The cry of "racism" is also the first, last and only refuge of those who have no legitimate argument.
So Attorney General Eric Holder, no doubt at the behest of his feckless leader, President Obama, hauled Arizona into court and left Verrilli with the thankless task of defending the administration's position.
Verrilli must have known his day would go badly when an Obama appointee, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, told him, "Your argument -- that this systematic cooperation [between Arizona and the federal government] is wrong -- is not selling very well. Why don't you come up with something else?"
The "something else" that occurred to Verrilli was to whine about how SB 1070 might lead to "mass incarceration," according to news reports. That prompted this retort from Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its own laws?"
Kennedy cut straight to the chase with that question. It's not the government that has a legitimate interest in not enforcing immigration laws; it's the Obama administration, which hauled Arizona into court for one reason, and one reason only: to get Latino votes.
Scalia sees right through such shameless, spineless pandering. His questions showed that he treats the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona with the contempt it deserves.
Here are some of the questions Scalia put to either Verrilli, attorney Paul Clement, who argued for the state of Arizona, or both:
* "But if, in fact, someone who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"
* "The state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there?"
* "Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you're not concerned about harassing them?"
* "We have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?"
Liberals, many Democrats, so-called progressives, America's open-borders crowd and those who think our immigration policy should be dictated by Mexico have their noses way out of joint about Scalia's questions.
One of them is Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who's in a snit because Scalia's questions weren't, in Milbank's view, "fair and impartial."
It occurs to me that justices should be fair and impartial most of the time, but not at all when there is a case before them that is a waste of taxpayers' money and the justices' time. And that's doubly true when the case was brought by an administration not to seek justice, but to cravenly pander to a particular ethnic or racial group for its votes.
What's unfair is that Arizona was hauled into court in the first place. Scalia may have realized that and asked his questions accordingly.
Rational Human posted at 11:58 am on Sun, Apr 29, 2012.
It's like Chief Justice Roberts said: "...It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally."
AZ_Resident posted at 8:59 am on Fri, Apr 27, 2012.
It's about time this comes to the forefront, hopefully the Supreme Court will set precedence over this hearing and finally get the ball rolling in the right direction whereby being here illegally means you're subject to arrest and deportation like its supposed to be.
Accuracy posted at 12:07 pm on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
U.S. Supreme Court justices strongly implied they're leaning toward upholding the rights of Arizona and other states be allowed to target illegal immigrants.
Unexpectedly, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic on the high court, also seemed skeptical of Obama administration's arguments.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sotomayor told the solicitor general. "Why don't you try to come up with something else"
The court's decision will directly affect the presidential campaign and Hispanic voters this year . . . So, Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, said he'll pass Democrats' legislation (through Congress) that will block other states from passing their own immigration laws.
k33j88 posted at 7:21 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
Why don't you 'libs go to the border to offer some water, cash, and a road map. I'm sure the survivors of murder, rape and assaults would appreciate your humane efforts. Why are the readers of the EVT only offered a handful of reporters opinions? Maybe they're hand-picked for their underlying agendas?
Pro AZ posted at 3:47 am on Thu, Apr 26, 2012.
WHAT a confusing and poorly written article! THE ARTICLE IN THE REPUBLIC IS FAR MORE RELEVANT, and is easy and clear in its reading, and has far more facts and in it. When you read this article here, it is confusing and twists the facts, likely on purpose no doubt, to make it almost sound the opposite of what happened today. Some of the things written here are exactly THE OPPOSITE of what was said by the justices. The AZ Republic article has hundreds of comments, while this paper has almost none. Nice try Tribune! LOL!
Go to the write up in the AZ Republic folks and find out the truth of what was said today. This author here obviously has an agenda and wants to confuse. How pathetic. This is the last time I read this paper.
Rational Human posted at 7:55 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
"Verrilli said there has to be a single national policy on immigration and deportation. Otherwise, he said, states like Arizona could end up taking actions that interfere with other federal issues, like foreign policy."
So, what Mexico and the rest of the countries below us think of us is more important than our immigration laws? Importing poverty when so many of us are without jobs is so important to the democrats staying in power that they will do anything to us so that they can stay in power? Remember that in the next election White people. Hispanics will, and the Obamanation has the entire Black race in his pocket even though his policies regarding immigration have harmed them the most.
samkat posted at 6:57 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Any inroads we make in reducing illegal immigration is a plus.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 4:45 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Wow....double...Wow.
This sure ain't the way it was supposed to go according to the Liberal/Progressives on the PBS-ASU Channel 8 "HORIZON" and "HORIZONTE" TV Programs. They have been saying for more than a year (along with every Local TV Channel Commentator and our Local Newspaper Editors) that the Justices would ..."rip Arizona apart from limb to limb" and that Governor Jan Brewer would have to ..."crawl back on her hands and knees" for having the audacity to go against Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats.
So much for the Left-Wing Pundits........even if some of SB 1070 gets approved to go into Law...that will be a win for the Arizona Republicans (or should I say....ARIZONA PATRIOTS).
GOD BLESS RUSSELL PEARCE (boy did he kick New York Democrat Senator Shummer's keester at the Senate Meeting).
chatmandu002 posted at 3:52 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
I believe justice Kennedy will flip to the left side and it will be a 4-4 vote with SB-1070 mostly shot down. Not the decision I want to see.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:23 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Quietgardens,
These eggs don't hatch until around the 4th of July. It's premature to count chicks!
quietgardens posted at 1:03 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.
Wow! Nobody has commented on this one yet? This will be an interesting event as it unfolds. It is nice to hear that some reporter, Howard Fischer, gave an extensive report on what was said by several of the justices. I will be watching eagerly!