PDA

View Full Version : Arizona's SB1070 Illegal-alien law being debated NOW before U.S. Supreme Court



Little-Acorn
04-25-2012, 12:51 PM
Several weeks ago, the Obamanites tried to persuade the Supreme Court that Obamacare was constitutional. No decision has been published yet (expected in June), but there have been signs that the Supremes didn't buy the Obamanites' arguments.

Now the same Obamanites are trying to persuade the Supremes, that Arizona's law saying Arizona cops can check people's immigration status when they encounteer them for other reasons (traffic stop, domestic violence call, mugging or robbery call etc.), is also unconstitutional. Oral arguments are happening Today, Wednesday, right now.

The Obamanites say that Arizona is not allowed to make laws on immigration checks, illegal-alien status etc. They say that since the Constitution states that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", this means the States cannot make any laws regarding checking immigration status, even if those state laws exactly match Congress's laws.

Mostly, the Obamanites (and many past administrations, Dem and Republican alike) have not wanted to enforce our immigration laws, and have mostly not done so for decades. Border states have been getting flooded by illegal aliens walking across the border, and have been screaming that the Fed govt stop it. Bizarrely, the Fed govt has not only refused to stop it, but the Obamanites have even sued Arizona when that state tried to do something about the illegal-alien invasion they are suffering.

Arizona made a law, SB1070, which says among other things that if Arizona cops come into contact with somebody for non-immigration purposes (traffic stop, citizen complaint etc.), they can check the person's immigration status at that time. And if they find reason to believe the person is an illegal alien, they then call Federal immigration authorities and turn the person over to the Feds. The Arizona cops do nothing more than that.

Naturally, the screaming began at once. The usual cries of "racism", the usual hysterical claims that Arizona cops are hunting down people based solely on whether they look Hispanic (backed by no evidence as usual).

Now Arizona's law is being challenged by the Obamanites in the Supreme Court. And it sounds like it's not going too well for them - even Obama-appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor said frankly to the Obama lawyers, "You can see it's not selling very well."

The Supremes won't issue a ruling for a while, probably in June I suppose.

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/arizona-immigration-law-battle-arrives-at-supreme-court/

Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Published April 25, 2012
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."

While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.

"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."

But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.

"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.

The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.

ConHog
04-25-2012, 12:58 PM
Several weeks ago, the Obamanites tried to persuade the Supreme Court that Obamacare was constitutional. No decision has been published yet (expected in June), but there have been signs that the Supremes didn't buy the Obamanites' arguments.

Now the same Obamanites are trying to persuade the Supremes, that Arizona's law saying Arizona cops can check people's immigration status when they encounteer them for other reasons (traffic stop, domestic violence call, mugging or robbery call etc.), is also unconstitutional. Oral arguments are happening Today, Wednesday, right now.

The Obamanites say that Arizona is not allowed to make laws on immigration checks, illegal-alien status etc. They say that since the Constitution states that Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization", this means the States cannot make any laws regarding checking immigration status, even if those state laws exactly match Congress's laws.

Mostly, the Obamanites (and many past administrations, Dem and Republican alike) have not wanted to enforce our immigration laws, and have mostly not done so for decades. Border states have been getting flooded by illegal aliens walking across the border, and have been screaming that the Fed govt stop it. Bizarrely, the Fed govt has not only refused to stop it, but the Obamanites have even sued Arizona when that state tried to do something about the illegal-alien invasion they are suffering.

Arizona made a law, SB1070, which says among other things that if Arizona cops come into contact with somebody for non-immigration purposes (traffic stop, citizen complaint etc.), they can check the person's immigration status at that time. And if they find reason to believe the person is an illegal alien, they then call Federal immigration authorities and turn the person over to the Feds. The Arizona cops do nothing more than that.

Naturally, the screaming began at once. The usual cries of "racism", the usual hysterical claims that Arizona cops are hunting down people based solely on whether they look Hispanic (backed by no evidence as usual).

Now Arizona's law is being challenged by the Obamanites in the Supreme Court. And it sounds like it's not going too well for them - even Obama-appointee Justice Sonia Sotomayor said frankly to the Obama lawyers, "You can see it's not selling very well."

The Supremes won't issue a ruling for a while, probably in June I suppose.

------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/25/arizona-immigration-law-battle-arrives-at-supreme-court/

Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision

Published April 25, 2012
FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

Just like the health care overhaul challenge heard earlier this month, Wednesday's hearing on the immigration law drew passionate surrogates from both sides. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was loudly booed by the law's opponents in front of the courthouse. She said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that "I am filled with optimism -- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."

While the justices addressed the traffic stop provision Wednesday, it was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the law, voiced optimism in Arizona's chances.

"This was a very good day for Arizona in the Supreme Court today," he told Fox News. "The U.S. Justice Department was on the ropes."

But Brent Wilkes, director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, warned that the law would take a "human toll" on Arizona families if allowed to stand.

"This is really a racial profiling bill," he told Fox News.

The hearing Wednesday morning has implications far beyond Arizona's borders, as several states, including Alabama and South Carolina, have followed in Arizona's footsteps to craft their own immigration enforcement measures.


It is unbelievable to me that the federal government is suing a state for enforcing a federal law. Even more unthinkable is that some cities and states actively IGNORE federal law (so called sanctuary cities) and no one says shit.

Obama should be ashamed.................

Little-Acorn
04-25-2012, 01:18 PM
There's a report indicating the justice Scalia asked the Obama lawyers a very pertinent question:

"What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

The Obama lawyer had no answer.

Anybody else want to try?

DragonStryk72
04-25-2012, 02:02 PM
There's a report indicating the justice Scalia asked the Obama lawyers a very pertinent question:

"What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

The Obama lawyer had no answer.

Anybody else want to try?

"To be placated with the appearance of power and authority over your own state, while still being completely completely beholden to the whims of people 2000 miles away from you?" No wait, that's not right

Gator Monroe
04-25-2012, 05:51 PM
Borders Lingo Culture :salute:

Kathianne
04-25-2012, 06:26 PM
There's a report indicating the justice Scalia asked the Obama lawyers a very pertinent question:

"What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

The Obama lawyer had no answer.

Anybody else want to try?

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamas-lawyer-chokes-again.html


April 25, 2012 "Obama's Lawyer Chokes Again." (http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamas-lawyer-chokes-again.html) Classic Drudge. (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

Little-Acorn
04-25-2012, 06:32 PM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/obamas-lawyer-chokes-again.html

Don't blame Obama's lawyer.

When you're trying to support the notion that 2+2=17, you're going to sound stupid no matter HOW intelligent you are, or how great an orator you are.

This fellow just had the misfortune to work for an administration that lives and dies by Goebbels' Rule: "If you tell a big enough lie, often enough, people will believe it and it will become the Truth".

Goebbels' Rule works pretty well when you're campaigning for votes from people who aren't paying much attention. You can put all kinds of things over on them. And if/when you do get caught, you can change the subject or filibuster until your audience goes away (or the news broadcast cuts to commercial).

But when you go into a place like the Supreme Court where your audience IS paying attention, you soon wind up gasping like a fish out of water as they point out the inconsistencies and untruths in what you are trying to push. At that point it is very difficult to come up with anything to say... as this lawyer has repeatedly demonstrated.

ConHog
04-25-2012, 08:33 PM
Don't blame Obama's lawyer.

When you're trying to support the notion that 2+2=17, you're going to sound stupid no matter HOW intelligent you are, or how great an orator you are.

This fellow just had the misfortune to work for an administration that lives and dies by Goebbels' Rule: "If you tell a big enough lie, often enough, people will believe it and it will become the Truth".

Goebbels' Rule works pretty well when you're campaigning for votes from people who aren't paying much attention. You can put all kinds of things over on them. And if/when you do get caught, you can change the subject or filibuster until your audience goes away (or the news broadcast cuts to commercial).

But when you go into a place like the Supreme Court where your audience IS paying attention, you soon wind up gasping like a fish out of water as they point out the inconsistencies and untruths in what you are trying to push. At that point it is very difficult to come up with anything to say... as this lawyer has repeatedly demonstrated.

IOW you can't turn a bucket of shit into filet mignon. LOL

Gator Monroe
04-25-2012, 09:17 PM
IOW you can't turn a bucket of shit into filet mignon. LOL

The MSM will try to prior to November Election .