Arizona Immigration Law: 3 of 4 provisions struck down. The requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they detain and reasonable believe may be an illegal immigrant, however, stands.

OK? GOOD POST.

I think that's fair.

live here for awhile

Not sure who remembers me, but years ago I ranted about how Scalia and Thomas were morons but Roberts and Alito would be fine justices.

There is no better example of how right I was than the Arizona case.

On one hand, you've got Roberts and Alito taking sane, conservative approaches to the issue - illegal immigrants are illegal, people who do illegal things should be treated like people who do illegal things, and we give special, but limited, powers to a select group of people to take care of it.

On the other hand, you've got Scalia ranting about how Southern states once used to be able to ban black people from entering its borders. (Ah, the good ol' days!)

JFC, all you Scalia supporters. How many insane opinions does this guy need to write before you realize he's actually insane?

I am honored that callipygian has posted on my thread.

As to the ruling. I think that it really can't be that unexpected. On one hand, they draw distinct lines on who can criminalize illegal immigration, but on the other hand they preserve the right of a sovereign state to take necessary steps to secure itself within the confines of federal law and the constitution.

dolphin, this isn't a global warming thread.

Scalia's ruling was pretty funny. I think we got the best possible outcome here, but I may lean toward Alito's opinion moreso than the majority opinion. Only Thomas and Scalia supported the provision that legal immigrants must carry papers at all times. That absolutely had to go as that was one of the biggest assaults on liberty in quite a while.

How did Scalia justify it?

"[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

He argued that since Arizona is "being invaded" it has the right to defend its sovereignty and borders however it wants. He says the right to exclude people from your borders is at the core of state sovereignty. Okay... maybe he is insane. But I still hope he sticks around until we get a Republican back in the White House :)

[quote poster=Klown; 18571; 344380]Scalia's ruling was pretty funny. I think we got the best possible outcome here, but I may lean toward Alito's opinion moreso than the majority opinion. Only Thomas and Scalia supported the provision that legal immigrants must carry papers at all times. That absolutely had to go as that was one of the biggest assaults on liberty in quite a while.

How did Scalia justify it?

"[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”

He argued that since Arizona is "being invaded" it has the right to defend its sovereignty and borders however it wants. He says the right to exclude people from your borders is at the core of state sovereignty. Okay... maybe he is insane. But I still hope he sticks around until we get a Republican back in the White House :) [/quote]


A- men to that! The last thing we need is another left-wing nut case like the last 2 Obumer has put in. Have they forgotten that the Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws but judge weather or not they are constitutional?

Deerhunter, if you keep making posts like this, people are going to start to realize that all your posts are ironic!

I thought the ruling was appropriate and it was important they didn't entirely prohibit the checking of immigration status. People forget that Mohamed Atta was pulled over in 2001 in Florida and one of the United Flight 93 terrorists was pulled over on 9/9/11 on I-95 in Cecil County, MD. I can't speak to Florida, but Maryland Troopers were highly discouraged from looking into immigration status by state lawmakers. Real ID changed a lot of the process for looking up making it less cumbersome, but still, I'm not sure the issue was as cut and dry as people made it out to be.

The big ruling will be tomorrow. I think the most interesting facet is severability, aka, do you need to strike all of the ACA or just the mandate?

Weren't the 9/11 terrorists here legally?

dolphin!

Something that hasn't really been talked about is the potential to strike down the entire law, but only based on the individual mandate and the lack of a severability clause.

I think there is actually a very good chance that they strike the whole law, but only find the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. That could be significantly better than simply striking just the individual mandate. Better to toss it all than let Obama try to duck tape the law back together.

it's a start

Obamacare stands. The Individual mandate has been found to be constitutional as a tax (which Obama claimed it wasn't, but that's not what he told the court), but arguments under the commerce clause were found to be invalid. The federal government, however, can not take away medicaid funding if the states refuse to lower their eligibility requirement and thereby expand their rolls (the court has vindicated the 26 states suing Obamacare).

I will admit, this is a big win for Obama that I did not expect. However, they have received a slap in the face that I suspect is understated in its importance. Obama may have won on the individual mandate (as a tax), but he has been pulled back from his looming position over the sovereign states. Obama cannot lord it over the states, but he can apparently lord it over the individuals so long as it's a tax.

I have said on IRC that the court may come to advertise for a case to reverse their ruling on the individual mandate and I believe this may trully be the case, but there are some real things which must come about before they look at reversing that decision. The public must have a mass reaction of civil disobedience that results in people being penalized for not paying this tax. Someone who has been prosecuted for not paying this tax may end up taking the individual mandate back up to the Supreme Court and seek to have the justices reverse their decision.

I will have to read the decision when I get home. I don't see how it could plausibly be constitutional. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter to me, its not like I'm going to go without health insurance anyway.

For a while there were 7 Republican nominees (current plus Souter and Stevens) and a 4-4-1 split in ideology. So don't get your hopes up if Romney wins.



I think this is where public opinion is a terrible thing. Of course Obama The Politician claimed it wasn't a tax. That doesn't mean he actually thinks it wasn't a tax, it just means that he said it. Surprise, surprise, Obama's a politician and he lies. What politicians say, especially on the campaign trail, means so very little.*

I mean, look back at all the Democrats who fluffed and whined about John Roberts being a conservative tool during his confirmation hearings. How do they feel about him now? If it's any different than they did yesterday, it just shows how insanely emotional the political debate has become.

(Another fun fact that has emerged since I was last active in AT political talk - 2/3 of Republicans and 1/3 of Democrats believe the President can control the price of gas; four years ago 2/3 of Democrats and 1/3 of Republicans believed the President could control the price of gas.)

---

* Don't get smug, all you Republicans. Romney's not even pretending to have any sort of soul so it's not like Romney's going to be able to make any of the tough decisions (Afghanistan, Social Security, deficit) that Obama failed to do. You guys seriously should have rallied behind McCain in 2008 so he didn't have to pull desperation moves with his VP pick. Of all the ironies in the world, the nascent Tea Party movement snubbing the one person in all of Congress who had a 30-year track record of fiscal restraint has to be one of the greatest.

Everybody agrees that there are at least some good parts to the Obamacare law (okay, when you get to 90%+ in life, that everybody). I think the Republicans next move should not be to vote repeal of Obamacare in the House of Representatives...that has 0 chance of passing the senate without some serious Democratic defections. I think they should first pass a law to ban pre-existing conditions, allow kids to stay on their parents' plan until they're 26, and those kind of almost universally commended aspect of the Obamacare law. Now, Democrats are going to say that this doesn't do anything, that it's all political, and that it's unneccessary since Obamacare is (by and large) constitutional. I'd agree with the first two points, but not the last. Republicans have said that they will repeal Obamacare and if they trully intend to do this, then (as good servants of the sovereign people of this country) they should ensure that those golden nuggets of Obamacare are preserved. It would be good service to the people to preserve those parts of the law before they repeal the law itself. Yes, it definately be political (very shrewd politics indeed) and no, it would not do anything...right now. It would, however, do something if/when Obamacare is repealed as Republicans fully intend to do.

Think we could have real healthcare reform any time soon? Think we could have healthcare reform that actually addresses the causes of high healthcare costs...and not just the symptom of high healthcare costs?

The more I think about this Obamacare ruling, the more I believe that the individual mandate will go back to the Supreme Court. Congress can't tell us to buy health insurance, but they can tax us if we don't? That's telling us to buy health insurance which the court said that congress cannot do.

If it's not repealed before someone gets "taxed" for not buying health insurance, this is going back to the Supreme Court. Maybe a 2nd go will get a ruling that actually makes sense.

Angel1, I am quite confused by the ObamaCare ruling as well. If my interpretation of the ruling is correct, it is a scary precedent. The way it reads to me is this:

It is unconstitutional for the government to say "you must buy health insurance". It is constitutional for the government to say "you don't have to buy health insurance, but if you don't you are going to pay a tax". If that's the case, that same logic could be applied to any unconstitutional law or to compel Americans to any unconstitutional act. They can't 'force' us to do it, but they can tax us if we don't. That's scary.