The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on June 25, 2012, 09:48:11 AM
-
(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/0/0/ScotusArizona_20120625_103854.jpg)
The Supreme Court has struck down most of the controversial Arizona immigration law, but upheld a key provision.
The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.
Other provisions, though, were struck down.
The federal government claimed the law encroached on its authority to enforce immigration law.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-most-arizona-immigration-law-upholds-key-provision/
-
Since Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented, we can assume that the majority opinion was more about the striking down than about the stopping the injunction. Did Roberts go along with the overturning of provisions to get the one smack to the 9th Circuit, or did he really agree with the three libs? Of course you can't ever be sure about Kennedy. But if Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were on one side, you can be sure that, from our POV, that was the right side to be on.
But if it had been 4-4 (Kagan recused), would that have meant no possible return to the SCOTUS when a full Court could rule? Thus ruling now was the only way to lift the 9th's stay? That's the only reason I can at least hope that Roberts went along with strking down three provisions--because if his judicial philosophy really did lead him to agree with striking down those three parts, then we're much more screwed than we ever knew. Could Roberts be the new Souter?
-
Kind of off topic. In that picture, it seems like Ginsberg is shrinking away from the rest of the justices. It looks odd.
-
Her chair looks too big.
-
Kind of off topic. In that picture, it seems like Ginsberg is shrinking away from the rest of the justices. It looks odd.
Or she's melting. She just hasn't been the same since that house fell on her sister.
-
Kind of off topic. In that picture, it seems like Ginsberg is shrinking away from the rest of the justices. It looks odd.
She is just old and frail,also been in poor health. More than likely the next justice to be replaced.
-
She is just old and frail,also been in poor health. More than likely the next justice to be replaced.
I've seen a couple of threads from the DUmmies that want her to retire now, so Obama can nominate her replacement. I would hope that the GOP would hold that up until after the elections though.
-
Or she's melting. She just hasn't been the same since that house fell on her sister.
I'll get you my prettyyyy
-
I've seen a couple of threads from the DUmmies that want her to retire now, so Obama can nominate her replacement. I would hope that the GOP would hold that up until after the elections though.
because of the ages of the justices if Romney had 2 terms he could possibly nominate 4 justices
-
Of course the DUmp wants Obama to appoint another Justice. It is a matter of anything the can do make it where there are far more liberal justices than conservative justices. Then anything the magic one wants will get passed through.
-
Of course the DUmp wants Obama to appoint another Justice. It is a matter of anything the can do make it where there are far more liberal justices than conservative justices. Then anything the magic one wants will get passed through.
Short of dying, I don't see any conservative justice giving up their seat while anyone like Obama is in office.
-
Short of dying, I don't see any conservative justice giving up their seat while anyone like Obama is in office.
I only hope and pray that is true.
-
Awesome...what a nightmare this guy is :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/
-
Awesome...what a nightmare this guy is :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/
:censored: This administration is the most criminal that I have ever heard of. Obama is making Hugo and Fidel proud.
-
Awesome...what a nightmare this guy is :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/
I can't wait till November and that bigot is kicked out of office. He is such an inept douchebag that it isn't funny.
-
:censored: This administration is the most criminal that I have ever heard of. Obama is making Hugo and Fidel proud.
The only difference between Obama and Assad is that Obama isn't actually shooting us down--yet.
-
I think the stunning factor that Roberts siding with the liberals is a signal that ObamaCare is absolutely toast. Roberts handed them a gift before he drops the anvil on ObamaCare.
-
I can't wait till November and that bigot is kicked out of office. He is such an inept douchebag that it isn't funny.
Not Obama's fault....Bill Ayers made him do it.
Hey, he has to blame someone doesn't he?
-
I think the stunning factor that Roberts siding with the liberals is a signal that ObamaCare is absolutely toast. Roberts handed them a gift before he drops the anvil on ObamaCare.
I hope you're right. I hope we're not finding something out about Roberts. While judges, especially lib ones, may rule for purely ideological and not legal and evidentiary reasons, I've never noticed that any one of them splits the baby across decisions deliberately. I don't think so-called "swing" justices--and God I hope Roberts is not one of those!--are making a calculation of the kind, "ok, I've made this group happy, now I'll make that group happy." Just my opinion.
Ok I answered my own question: SCOTUS judges can hear reargument on a tied case. But that still requires a tie-breaking justice, and who knows when that'll happen? There won't be one for real as opposed to libpseudojudges unless Romney wins. If Roberts had sided with the good guys, the 9th Circuit's decision would have stood in full, for a very long time. I'm reaching the conclusion that Roberts did the best he could for AZ. Kennedy wasn't going to go for anything that exceeded federal law by a quintillionth of judicial nanometer, I'm betting.
-
I hope you're right. I hope we're not finding something out about Roberts. While judges, especially lib ones, may rule for purely ideological and not legal and evidentiary reasons, I've never noticed that any one of them splits the baby across decisions deliberately. I don't think so-called "swing" justices--and God I hope Roberts is not one of those!--are making a calculation of the kind, "ok, I've made this group happy, now I'll make that group happy." Just my opinion.
Ok I answered my own question: SCOTUS judges can hear reargument on a tied case. But that still requires a tie-breaking justice, and who knows when that'll happen? There won't be one for real as opposed to libpseudojudges unless Romney wins. If Roberts had sided with the good guys, the 9th Circuit's decision would have stood in full, for a very long time. I'm reaching the conclusion that Roberts did the best he could for AZ. Kennedy wasn't going to go for anything that exceeded federal law by a quintillionth of judicial nanometer, I'm betting.
I know you're right but, this shit makes me really nervous. As I said on a previous post, I imagine they are setting in their beautifully appointed offices, looking out on a beautiful view of DC and smiling at the thought of all of us ants scurrying around.
-
^ Sorry Kyle, but I hate it when people keep saying things like "he's so inept." The truth is, he isn't. He's doing all he can to cripple what we have. A Capitalist Republic. It isn't mumbo jumbo. It isn't a conspiracy theory. It's truth. Just look back at everything he's done. The Executive Privelage thing, what he did today, and what he plans to maybe do (the other thred about his next possible executive order) are just a few examples, but they are some of the most glaring thus far.
The guy is honestly pretty intelligent, but in the dangerous kind of way. The Hannibal Lecter kind of intelligent. Dangerous...
He knows what he's doing, and he is succeeding.
-
Awesome...what a nightmare this guy is :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/
There are ways around this on the state side absolutely. State laws can be enacted making it illegal to secure public services if you are not a legal citizen of the state (to include driver's licenses, etc.). Hospitals could be fined for not reporting illegals -- you name it, a Republican controlled state house can start kicking out a ton of laws to make it very unattractive for illegals to want to squat in that state.
-
He knows what he's doing, and he is succeeding.
I think he punts half the time. What we are seeing with this, and with the threat of a slew of executive orders on his desk waiting the SCOTUS decision on health care, are acts of a very desperate and very arrogant administration.
I shudder to think about the pardons he plans on giving on his way out the door.
-
So does this mean that states that set higher rules for vehicle emissions or minimum wages for employees than the Federal Government calls for...are in violation of the Constitution and should lower their standards back down to the Federal levels? Can they be sued for exceeding and overstepping the Federal Government?
-
I think he punts half the time. What we are seeing with this, and with the threat of a slew of executive orders on his desk waiting the SCOTUS decision on health care, are acts of a very desperate and very arrogant administration.
I shudder to think about the pardons he plans on giving on his way out the door.
Very arrogant? Yes. Desperate? I personally think Obama wasn't sure the people would go along with his bullshit from the get go, so he had to put certain options in place.
For the record, Holder will certainly be one of those pardons. I'll bet all the money I get for the next 3 months.
-
There are ways around this on the state side absolutely. State laws can be enacted making it illegal to secure public services if you are not a legal citizen of the state (to include driver's licenses, etc.). Hospitals could be fined for not reporting illegals -- you name it, a Republican controlled state house can start kicking out a ton of laws to make it very unattractive for illegals to want to squat in that state.
Are you kidding me? The damn DoJ sued the state of Florida for attempting to purge their voter registration roles of illegals.
Any state that attempts to do what you suggest would be immediately sued by the corrupt Obama DoJ. They don't give a shit about State Sovereignty.
-
Are you kidding me? The damn DoJ sued the state of Florida for attempting to purge their voter registration roles of illegals.
Any state that attempts to do what you suggest would be immediately sued by the corrupt Obama DoJ. They don't give a shit about State Sovereignty.
State governments may begin to ignore diktats from Washington, asserting that the diktats have no basis in law--ie, the Constitution--at all and that they don't even NEED to go to court, which would require Washington to actually send in federal agents (including FBI) to seize control of state buildings and the instrumentalities of state government, and perhaps even arrest governors. Wouldn't that make a pretty picture for the Obama admin.?
It could happen. We're rapidly reaching a boiling point in these wars on the states by the runaway Obama dictatorship.
At which point, we really do have civil war of a kind.
-
There's no evidence that Roberts is a flip-flopper. He was appointed because of his even-handedness toward the law, and he was confirmed accordingly.
I'm more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yesterday's editorial in the WSJ gave the entire court a thumbs-up for the decisions they made, and while I absolutely do NOT agree with the WSJ vis a vis illegal immigration (those guys basically throw their hands in the air and say, "Screw it - they're here already, might as well give 'em amnesty"), they gave a compelling account of the legal basis by which they reached their decision:
On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested planks of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and that federal laws pre-empt state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.
Related Video
The Arizona State Capitol grounds in Phoenix after the Supreme Court's decision on Monday.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions—like making it a misdemeanor to apply for a job without citizenship or a visa—the majority held that Congress had deliberately "occupied the field" under pre-emption doctrine, and Arizona had thus intruded on federal prerogatives.
However, the Justices said that Arizona police will be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.
Two of the three dissenting Justices—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major dissent came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust if idiosyncratic defense of state prerogatives going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.)
The 8-0 rebuke to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his dissent as "an astounding assertion of federal executive power." The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it can nullify any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.
Related Video
Editorial page editor Paul Gigot on the various ways the Supreme Court could rule on ObamaCare. Photo: Getty Images
Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn't want to carry out Congress's immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.
One lesson of this case is that the Roberts Court does not practice the radical activism of liberal myth. Its very careful jurisprudence is aimed at protecting the U.S. federalist system, in which states and the federal government share sovereignty and both possess rights that the other is bound to honor.
We happen to share the Obama Administration's desire for a welcoming, nonpunitive immigration policy, but it can't accomplish that by asserting power it doesn't have. Full marks to the Court for striking the proper Constitutional balance.
WSJ Online (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640804577488640267175810.html?KEYWORDS=supreme+court+editorial+June+26+2012)
-
9hrs 10 minutes.
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock.
-
9hrs 10 minutes.
Tick, Tock, Tick, Tock.
My apologies, I missed the actual announcement time. So 10 am central?
-
My apologies, I missed the actual announcement time. So 10 am central?
Yup.
-
Yup.
Thanks "old" friend. 8)
This working nights stuff is still killing me. But I shall be awake to hear the results.
-
Thanks "old" friend. 8)
This working nights stuff is still killing me. But I shall be awake to hear the results.
Yeah the ruling will come out about the time I'm driving home from work. I'm 7 hours ahead of east coast time.
Either way it's a pain in the ass for us to try and hear the decisionas it happens.
-
Yeah the ruling will come out about the time I'm driving home from work. I'm 7 hours ahead of east coast time.
Either way it's a pain in the ass for us to try and hear the decisionas it happens.
I thought it's 10 AM Eastern. It'll go on to about 10:15, and it wouldn't surprise me to hear that Chief Roberts doesn't actually announce it until that moment.
-
I am confused...........
what is going on
-
I am confused...........
what is going on
It's been upheld
From what I understand they slapped his hand for calling it a mandate..you can tax people an extra 1600 bucks though a year to pay for it :banghead: :banghead:
-
This assures Romney a win.
-
The Obama admin is celebrating...even though they swore UP and DOWN that this WAS NOT a TAX.... I guess it's gonna be a tax now. Yet another LIE from them.
-
It's been upheld
From what I understand they slapped his hand for calling it a mandate..you can tax people an extra 1600 bucks though a year to pay for it :banghead: :banghead:
And now people can be "taxed" for not buying ANYTHING that Congress demands we buy--Broccoli included. It amounted to exactly the same thing, except the taxing power was just broadened. Roberts now is officially the new Souter.
-
This assures Romney a win.
Not if you don't get out and make SURE that it happens.
-
Not if you don't get out and make SURE that it happens.
Exactly.