WASHINGTON -- A majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning appeared sympathetic to Arizona's argument that the most controversial elements of its immigration law offer a legitimate helping hand to federal immigration policy, rather than act as unconstitutional agents of chaos.
There was no major assault on S.B. 1070 coming from the high court.
“What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?” Justice Antonin Scalia said during the 80-minute session, which ran 20 minutes beyond its scheduled time.
Justice Antonin Scalia took the most extreme view in favor of the law, sarcastically characterizing the federal government's argument as "the state has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there."
The conservative justices saved much of their skepticism for Solicitor General Verrilli's assertions that federal law preempted four provisions of the Grand Canyon State's effort at "attrition through enforcement." Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court's swing vote, noted Arizona's "massive emergency with social disruption, economic disruption, residents leaving the state because of the flood of immigrants."
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the "papers please" provision does no more than assist the federal government's own policy of keeping tabs on undocumented immigrants. "It is not an effort to enforce federal law," Roberts said. "It is an effort to let you know about violations of federal law."
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic named to the high court, told Verrilli half way through his presentation.
So it's not lookin too good for Obama on this case either!
Stupid activist judges! Trying to change the Constitution, oh wait, they are supporting both state and federal law that is attempting to reduce illegal immigration.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
So if they say the law is constitutional, will those on the left who keep saying Roe v Wade was the correct ruling agree with this ruling as well since the Supremes can do no wrong?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
CritiKalbILL wrote: So if they say the law is constitutional, will those on the left who keep saying Roe v Wade was the correct ruling agree with this ruling as well since the Supremes can do no wrong?
Nope. They pick and choose what they like about the Supremes just like Righties do.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
CritiKalbILL wrote: So if they say the law is constitutional, will those on the left who keep saying Roe v Wade was the correct ruling agree with this ruling as well since the Supremes can do no wrong?
Nope. They pick and choose what they like about the Supremes just like Righties do.
When did you decide you were the spokesperson for liberals? Why not just ask liberals instead of your snarky insinuation?
FWIW .if the supremes decide this is a constitutional law then I will abide by it (I do live in AZ), just as I would expect others to abide by Roe v Wade and not take the law into their own hands by harassing women who seek abortions or clinics that provide them.
