Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    Supreme Court Rules on Arizona SB 1070 Analysis

    Supreme Court Rules on Illegal Immigration Law Case
    Arizona Wins Partial Victory in a 5 to 3 Split Decision on SB 1070
    An Analysis by Scott Rohter, June 2012
    Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona called the recent Supreme Court decision on Arizonaís tough illegal immigration law SB 1070, ďa victory for all Americans.Ē The central part of the law was upheld in an 8 to 0 decision Tuesday. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from all votes regarding the Arizona law. The reason she gave for recusing herself was that she had been the Solicitor General at the time that the Federal Government first sued Arizona over this matter. All of the other Liberal Justices on the Court voted with the conservative members to uphold the most important aspect of the Arizona law, however the victory was neither unqualified nor complete. There is still much more work that needs to be done. There were three other parts of the Arizona law that the Court ruled on and decided against Arizona.

    In a 5 to 3 split decision with only Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissenting, certain other aspects of the get tough on illegal immigration Arizona law were rejected including the part that allowed for warrantless arrests when there is a reason to believe that a person illegally in the country has committed a crime or misdemeanor. That was Section 6 of the Arizona law. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to reject that part of the Arizona law.

    Another aspect of the law that was rejected by the same 5 to 3 decision with the same Justices aligning themselves on the same sides of the issue, was found in Section 5 of the Arizona law. This section made it a separate State crime for illegal aliens to work, or apply for work, or solicit to do work while in Arizona. Again Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal Justices of the Court: Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor to strike down that aspect of the Arizona law. They said that it interfered with Congressional jurisdiction which was delegated to Congress, and specifically to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which did not make it a crime for illegal aliens to work in the country. Again Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were dissenting.

    Finally in a 6 to 2 split decision the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Section 3 of the Arizona law, which made it a separate crime for resident aliens not to carry registration papers with them to prove their legal status. On this aspect of the Arizona law, Justice Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Liberal Justices of the Court, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to reject that part of the Arizona law.

    In other words the victory we achieved today was a narrowly focused victory, and rather limited in scope, and there is still plenty of work to do and room for appeals and further legal wranglingÖ The wheels of justice turn slowly! Fox new analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano predicted almost immediately after the decision was announced that other aspects of the Arizona law including its implementation, as well as the unanswered questions raised by this Supreme Court Decision will be back at the Supreme Court being challenged within the next two years. This is about all we can expect from such a divided Supreme Court, with only three solid conservatives along with two moderates and four staunch liberal-progressives on the Bench. The type of decisions that this court hands down are not going to be either sweeping or far-reaching in nature. If Americans want to see real sweeping decisions that restore the proper balance of power between the States and the Federal Government, sweeping decisions which cut the power and authority of the Federal Government and restore the original precepts of Federalism and States Rights, and decisions which respect the 9th and 10th Amendments, then we will almost certainly have to do it ourselves at the ballot box by refusing to elect any more Democrat Presidents until the Democratic Party loses its zeal for progressive ideas!

    The other provisions of Arizonaís tough illegal immigration law that were either rejected by this Court or returned to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for further review include the central contention of the law that if the Federal Government fails to do its Constitutional duty by not enforcing existing immigration laws, that the States can step in and do it for them. That aspect of Federalism and that aspect of SB1070 were rejected by this Court. Other aspects of the Arizona law that were sent back down to the lower courts for review and possible legal challenges include whether or not the law is being unfairly applied based upon racial profiling.
    But the main, central part of the law was upheld. In an 8 to 0 decision with Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself, the entire U.S. Supreme Court upheld the main thrust of the tough Arizona law. That decision said it is okay for Arizona police to ask a person being detained for another reason to see their proof of legal residency. All of the liberal Justices on the Court except Kagan who recused herself agreed with this aspect of the ruling, even Justice Sotomayor.

    Let me repeatÖ If a person is already being detained, or stopped and being questioned for some other reason, then Arizona police can ask them for proof of legal residency. There is no question about this anymore! What Arizona police cannot do is they cannot just go around and willy-nilly pull people off the street for no other reason other than to ask to see their ďpapersĒ, or randomly go up to people on the street and question them about some alleged crime that really didnít occur just as a ruse to see their papers! Of course how you prove whether or not they are actually doing that is why there is in all likelihood the real probability that Arizonaís law will be challenged again soon in the future. So Arizona will have to be very careful to strictly document every stop, and everything surrounding their attempts to enforce legal immigration. And of course when Arizona is done documenting everything, dotting all their Iís and crossing all their Tís, the Obama administration has made it perfectly clear that they do not intend to ever seriously deport any illegal aliens back to Mexico! So Arizona will just have to detain them in County jails until such time as we have a change in administrations and a change in policies at the Federal level.

    The Supreme Court said that cops cannot just go up to people on the street and ask to see their papers. And that seems perfectly reasonable to me! We shouldnít have to carry papers with us proving our legal residency, other than perhaps a valid State driverís license or identification card. And that driverís license or identification card should only be issued to legal residents by the State Department of Motor Vehicles in every State! This is a decision that every State makes. We do not want to have a National I.D. Card. That would only mean even more Federal control over our lives. The implementation of this requirement is properly left to the States under the 9thand 10th Amendments.

    As to how the person being detained for questioning by the police will be handled if they donít have a driverís license with them, and they donít have any other immediate proof of legal residency at the time they are being questioned, I donít actually know how the Arizona police will be handling those details, but I am sure that the Hispanic lobby will be closely monitoring the situation.

    Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were in the minority on most aspects of this historic decision. They wanted to re-establish stronger State enforcement powers to enforce existing Federal Laws when the United States Government, because of a poor administration fails to do so. They wanted the States to be able to take over the role of the Federal Government in those rare cases when the Federal Government is derelict in its duties. This contention of the Arizona Law was rejected by the other members of the Supreme Court. A more vigorous and accurate interpretation of the 9th and 10th Amendments will have to await a more faithful and fundamentalist Supreme Court, and the people can only provide that at the ballot box by electing solid conservative Presidents. That is essentially what the Supreme Court said. This issue has to be decided at the ballot box in the next General Election!

    source: U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Illegal Immigration Law Arizona SB 1070

    Original source for breakdown of the Supreme Court decision Arizona immigration law: Breakdown of Supreme Court's ruling
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Finally in a 6 to 2 split decision the Supreme Court ruled to strike down Section 3 of the Arizona law, which made it a separate crime for resident aliens not to carry registration papers with them to prove their legal status. On this aspect of the Arizona law, Justice Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Liberal Justices of the Court, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor to reject that part of the Arizona law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    John Roberts has been a major disappointment. He voted against the nation both on Obamacare and AZ SB 1070.

    Someone, or something got to him.

    The Pope?
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member southBronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4,674
    I think all of the court better get on the ball yes obama should be Impeched no two way about this wake the hell
    Up . get your head out of the sand
    No amnesty Or dream act

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •