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
    working4change
    Guest

    Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

    Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

    By Stephen Dinan
    The Washington Times
    Wednesday, April 25, 2012



    Eduardo Robles, of Harrisonburg, Va., marches with others opposed to Arizona’s S.B. 1070, in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, April 25, 2012, as the nation’s highest court hears arguments over Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law. (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)

    Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

    The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

    The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.

    “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

    The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer talks to reporters in front of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, April 25, 2012, after the nation’s highest court heard arguments over Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law, known as S.B. 1070. (Rod Lamkey Jr./The Washington Times)

    Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

    “These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

    But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

    “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

    The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.

    Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.

    “It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.

    A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.

    Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.

    Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.

  2. #2
    working4change
    Guest

  3. #3
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Even Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor Shredded The Government's Arguments Against Arizona's Immigration Law
    Brett LoGiurato | Apr. 25, 2012, 2:47 PM | 2,100 | 23



    Signs it's not going well for this government and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli at the Supreme Court: when a traditionally liberal judge appointed by Barack Obama has no idea of the argument they're trying to make.

    Enter Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

    "Putting aside your argument that this -- that a systematic cooperation is wrong -- you can see it's not selling very well -- why don't you try to come up with something else?" she said to Verrilli.

    "Because I, frankly -- as the chief has said to you, it's not that it's forcing you to change your enforcement priorities. You don't have to take the person into custody. So what's left of your argument?"

    Verrilli had a rough time today trying to sell the Supreme Court justices — even the liberal ones — against the Arizona immigration law.

    For context, Verrilli opened with a three-pronged opening argument against a controversial provision in SB 1070 that requires law enforcement officials to check the legal status of detained and arrested people with reasonable suspicion. It went like this:

    1. Two million Hispanics live in Arizona — 400,000 illegally. Almost immediately, Justice Antonin Scalia cut him off because it "sounds like racial profiling to me." Earlier, Verrilli assured Chief Justice John Roberts that he would not attempt to argue on racial profiling grounds.

    2. He moved onto the accountability issues of state officials enforcing federal laws but not being held accountable. No justice seemed to buy that.

    3. The new amount of reports from state officials would overburden federal resources.

    But that argument drew the skeptical comments from Sotomayor.

    Read more: Arizona Immigration Law Arguments Shredded Even By LIBERAL Justices - Business Insider




    Arizona Immigration Law Arguments Shredded Even By LIBERAL Justices - Business Insider

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
  •