Thread: Supreme Court seeks White House views on hiring illegals

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4658--0-0.html

Can States Mandate Use of E-Verify? Putting the Obama Administration on Record

By Janice Kephart, November 3, 2009

The Supreme Court seems increasingly interested in taking on immigration-related cases. In its last term, the Court took on four cases involving illegal aliens, and in three of them, the illegal alien won. Now the Court is asking the President Obama's appointee for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to produce a brief in the Ninth Circuit case that challenged the legality of Arizona's mandatory E-Verify law for businesses. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Arizona: federal immigration law does not preempt Arizona mandating use of E-Verify for businesses because there is no express legal requirement that E-Verify be wholly voluntary, as was argued by E-Verify challengers.

The case was brought by longtime foe of E-Verify, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has sued in multiple states after losing their long-standing policy arguments about how poorly E-Verify performs to the real facts about the high-performance rate of the program and its high level of acceptance by employers. However, even losing in the Ninth Circuit has not stopped the Chamber from pursuing its goals to undo E-Verify every which way they can. If states can’t mandate E-Verify use by employers, then employers the Chamber is working with primarily on this issue – the construction industry – won’t be (as easily) held accountable to federal law that prohibits hiring illegal workers.

The result is that the Chamber is on its last effort to undo E-Verify, seeking Supreme Court review with the hope that a new opinion will overrule the Ninth Circuit and thereby ban the growing number of states requiring use of E-Verify in some way. The number of states requiring use of E-Verify has surged in the last two years, and now includes 16 states, with other states like Ohio considering legislation. These states currently requiring use of E-Verify for some or all employers are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Utah.

The fact that the Court has asked Kagan to weigh in means two things: (1) the Supreme Court is considering granting the Chamber’s request to hear the case; and (2) the Obama Administration will now be put on record as to how much they truly support E-Verify.

While it is true that technically the Solicitor General should be legally objective, the role of Solicitor General is as political as the President seeks in the person that is asked to fulfill that role. The mission of the Solicitor General’s office is described as follows:

Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870, states, "There shall be in the Department of Justice an officer learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties to be called the Solicitor General." The Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts.

Elena Kagan will clearly see the political ramifications of accepting the Court's invitation to provide a federal government brief on the issue. With a long career of politically infused legal positions, most recently as Dean of Harvard Law School but for four years at the White House from 1995 to 1999, as Associate Counsel to the President (1995-96) and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1997-99), she is well-positioned to either side-step this issue or tell us how supportive the Obama Administration really is of E-Verify.

Considering how badly this administration wants amnesty, a choice may be made to support Arizona and E-Verify as a means to an end, and because the law supports that finding. From the public’s point of view, Kagan’s decision to engage on this issue – or not – will tell us a lot about how serious the Obama Administration is about truly asserting “rule of lawâ€

I wonder how many of the Supreme Court justices are members of the Counsel on Foreign Relations? It might explain several things in my mind if they are members....One important question is "Who are the puppet masters?"

(I know Richard its the LaRouche theory. All I can say to that is hear me now believe me later.)

Justice Members of CFR

Stephen Breyer Judge 15-Aug-1938 US Supreme Court Justice

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Judge 15-Mar-1933 US Supreme Court Justice

http://www.nndb.com/org/505/000042379/

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg also share the same religious/cultural heritage, as does Elena Kagan, Obama's appointee for Solicitor General, and seemingly most of the central core of advisors around Obama. This group believes in internationalism: they have never had their own country since they got themselves evicted through their own actions from literally the "Garden of Eden" because they got greedy and disobeyed its creator's rules. They also seem to have made an ethno-centric "crusade" out of open immigration since many on their own families could not find enough countries to take them to escape the Nazis in Europe. For this their descendants seem to blame countries like the United States whose efforts did so much to win that terrible war rather than those who started it.