I haven't read the decision yet, but it appears the Court struck down the measures of the law that made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to be in or apply for work in the State of Arizona, and the provision that allowed State law enforcement to make warrantless arrests and detentions of individuals that they believe are illegal aliens. I think this ruling was expected on the basis of federal preemption.

The "papers please" provision that makes it mandatory for the police to detain anyone arrested for anything until the officer can ascertain the immigration status from the federal authorities. Nothing before this Act prevented an arresting officer from checking with Immigration. The Act, as I understand it, removes discretion and requires everyone to be checked, which, of course won't be done.

Not having read the decision, I understand that the remand to the Ninth Cir. is to determine whether that narrow issue is supplanting or supporting federal law. I'm a bit surprised though that none of the Justices determined that from the given facts. One way or another, we haven't heard the last of this remaining issue.

Lock up that fucking [BadWord] of a governor and let her rot in jail.

Don't hold back.

Brewer always seems "spacey" to me. Like she's not all there.


TIS

SC Decision on SB1070

If Anthony Scalia had possession over Judgment Day, President Obama would have no reason to pray.

Scalia can be very sarcastic and nasty when he is on the losing side and he did not disappoint in his dissent. Pointing to racially exclusionary laws restricting entry of black citizens as precedent for states having their own immigration policy is pretty low.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he voted against "Obamacare"..

Scalia can lock himself in the same cell as the [BadWord] governor.

This may surprise some people here but here's my take on the whole immigration thing...

On one hand, a sovereign nation has to be able to protect it's own borders. On the other hand, as cliche as it sounds, "real immigration reform" needs to happen. It takes people, who are trying to go through the proper channels, too long.

As for those who came here illegally. I'm not interested in shipping them back. Especially if it meant breaking up families. I see a lot of these people and they work their fingers to the bone, doing crappy jobs, for bum pay, and are just trying to make it. I'm fine with there being some way for them to stay. And, of course, the more they are willing to assimilate into mainstream American culture, the better.

Now that said, here's the flip side of the coin. I think any illegal immigrant, wherever they are from, who comes here simply to rob, rape, run drugs, or whatever should do a heavy prison stint and then be deported. And if they come back, they should be executed.

Ivy, I have to tell you, I was with you 100%, up until that last sentence. Usually I don't oppose the death penalty, but I don't know if I would go that far, although of course it would depend on the crime.

A woman that my husband graduated high school with was murdered several years ago by an illegal immigrant who was working for a company she hired to power wash her deck. Not only was she raped and murdered, but then the bastard stole her cell phone and called all her contacts and taunted them with what he had done to her.

I personally believe that someone like that should have gotten the death penalty right out of the box. Some guy who becomes a drug mule or the woman forced to work off debt to the people who brought her into the US in a brothel are both engaged in illegal activities. However, they should not be punished the same way as the bastards who are using them.

Exactly. As I opined above, failure to produce a driver's license is probable cause and applies to anyone driving. It's the discretion that this law takes away from police regarding any further action that is the core of it. But taking away that discretion regarding driver's licenses may be a good thing. For one, I think that failure to produce a license should never be ovrlooked.

Like Kly, I see a certain continuity with state law in the SCOTUS ruling: They said state, county and local law enforcement could ask about immigration status when making "legitimate" stops. But Arizona could not make new laws on immigration that interfere with the Federal Government's sovereignty over immigration--AZ can't deport illegals, can't prosecute them if they hold jobs, etc. The continuity: previously, state, county and local law enforcement people could be certified by the Feds to participate in arrests of illegals after meeting certain criteria. This SCOTUS interpretation expands it somewhat by allowing them to inquire about immigration status and, presumably, hold them for the Feds if they can't prove it.

As a AZ resident, I have mixed feelings about this. I share SC's view of our benighted governor and her motivations. The practice is a formula for racial profiling: my wife and I, if stopped for a traffic offense, are never going to be asked about our immigration status. But our granddaughter, whose birth father was Brazilian and who looks Hispanic, would.

On the other hand, illegal immigration is a major problem for Arizona and its municipalities, and costs hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and ancillary costs. I agree with Ivy that many if not most illegals do jobs that no Americans do. If all illegals were deported, the cost of construction, restaurant meals and service, food processing, child care, etc., would go up astronomically. On the other hand, you can't expect people to be good American citizens if they start out by violating our laws in coming here.

TB, I think the concern about illegal immigrants is overblown. For one, how in the world can anyone know how many are in this country and what has been the practical effect of their presence? You've identified the trade-off: we don't have to pay $5 p/lb for tomatoes, but we do support medical care at hospitals because illegals don't have medical insurance.

Than what's to stop these scumbags from returning again and again to commit more crimes?

The point being, I'm willing to be very open for people who come here, even illegally, for honest reasons. But I have no patience for those who come here illegally just to exploit this country.

And now that this Supreme Court decision has come down, Congress needs to get off it's ass and actually do it's job in regards to immigration reform. But we all know they won't. Like before, they'll keep paying lip service to the issue while kicking the can down the road. And Obama knows this as much as anyone. The whole reason some states have started to do something about it is because the federal government hasn't done jack crap.

Where I live there is no issue with millions of Canadians flowing across the border and demanding we pronounce the word "about" as "a-boat" or putting random "eh's" at the end of sentences.

So I don't have the same concerns as someone who would live in a state that borders Mexico. And Scalia's Tea Party understanding of state sovereignty is frankly, scary.

But I also don't like what seems to be petulance by the Administration in announcing that it won't act on most requests from Arizona. If you are here illegally, you should be identified and removed to your country of origin-regardless of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc.

We can argue in the big picture that something like this incident could have happened with a citizen and that is true. But if this person had been deported she would not have been driving drunk on US streets and that young citizen may still have been alive.

So I say enforce the law without racism or hatred or bigotry. If you're not here legally the proper response by the state should be to send you home.

There's larger questions of population growth and legacies of colonialism and why the Global North is richer than the Global South but on a micro level I don't think we can solve those questions with porous borders and laws that aren't enforced.

Amidst all the pedantic attention directed at the Court's AZ immigration law decision and the forthcoming helth care law decision, this decision was missed:

By DAVE LEVINTHAL | 6/25/12 10:27 AM EDT Updated: 6/26/12 7:40 AM EDT

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana’s attempt to limit campaign contributions, citing the Citizens United ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate campaign spending.

The 5-4 ruling was made on partisan lines, with the conservative majority voting to summarily dismiss the Montana case without oral arguments.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77788.html#ixzz1yv116XS0

I agree with Lilo and Ivy (and who ever thought those two guys would be on the same page? ).

I support the right for those who were brought here illegally as children to stay here, providing that they lead non-criminal lives as adults. But the minute one of the illegals commits a violent felony, to paraphrase that asshole Al Gore: It's time for them to go.

As for legal immigration: Come here the right way, like my grandparents did. And don't tell me about how poor Mexico is, because I'm fully aware. I truly feel for those people. But by the same token, Southern Italy was no financial nirvana during the 1920s, either.

The European immigrants of the 19th and 20th centuries had to come here though channels. The "new" immigrants should do likewise. It's not "come-one-come-all," and it never has been.

I believe it's Title 8 of the US Code that deals with immigration. It is all that is needed legally to deal with the immigration problem. Nothing new is needed.

The only way to try and stop illegal imigration is to seal the border which would take billions and billions of dollars over at least a decade. Then it would take billions annually to maintain that security, but even then illegal immigration would still take place. Of course, once illegal immigration is interdicted, what happens to the price of tomatoes? How about $5 p/lb?

Not to mention the birth rate, shortage of low wage home health care workers, etc.

Well, tomorrow is Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision day. Any guesses on the SCOTUS majority opinion? I think that they'll follow their AZ immigration law opinion lead and treat the Act as severable. The mandate maybe struck down, but the rest will remain.

I think you may be right. Roberts and Kennedy remain the wild cards. While they were both seemingly critical of the mandate during oral argument, generally heavier consideration is given to the parties' briefs. It will be an interesting day.

I think the mandate will be thrown out 5-4. (Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) in majority.
I think the Medicaid expansion will be upheld 6-3. (Scalia, Alito and Thomas in dissent)


Either way (assuming the Court does rule and does not just kick it down the road until 2014) tomorrow will be fascinating reading because one group of partisans will be sticking their chest out and cheering while another will be moaning, groaning and vowing bloody revenge..

By JUAN A. LOZANO updated 1 hour 58 minutes ago

HOUSTON — A man who claimed Texas' version of a "Stand Your Ground" law allowed him to fatally shoot a neighbor after an argument about a noisy party was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years for murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47986039

Read this and get rightly informed, dont be fooled by the spin machine

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

"Bottom line SCOTUS upheld HCR case but mandate cant be upheld under commerce clause but can under court's taxing authority"

How confusing.

Can we agree that Roberts aint getting anymore conservative party dinner invites anymore?

Jerry Sandusky will continue to receive his state pension of $59,000 per year for life while incarcerated. His wife will continue to receive a pension after his death.

My tax dollars at work.

And yet when a cop with 20 years on the job gets axed for a crime his family loses the pension. Not that I'm defending dirty cops; there's nothing lower. But it seems like a terrible double standard.

And Sandusky's wife deserves to starve just for taking the stand in defense of that animal.

Now PB, you know very well that such things don't happen unless it is a function of law. How does the law address either sceanrio? Sandusky was State employee. A policeman is a municipal employee. Once is subject to Pennsylvania law while the other is subject to the law of another state.

I know that, Oli, and you know very well that I'm just blowing off steam. I have three kids, and you may remember that my younger daughter is currently enrolled at Penn State. She starts her junior year in September, so this hits pretty close to home for me.

I must admit that sometimes I misapprehend the Throggs Neck locals.

The Legislature actually enumerated the crimes, for which a state pension may be forfeited. They include crimes like forgery, embezzlement, etc., that deal with dishonestly performing the functions of the job. They didn't include child molestation.