Arizona bill 1070 - Page 38 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-25-2012, 09:52 PM   #556
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:48 PM
High court rejects parts of Ariz. immigration law – USATODAY.com

[quote]WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law on Monday, but allowed one of the key provisions to stand in a highly anticipated split decision.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.

Although it is illegal to hire an illegal alien in this country only federal authorities may enforce that provision of the law apparently? So when the feds are derelict or simply lack resources to patrol the border, enforce workplace laws and deport those here illegally the border states just have to pay the price I guess.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 10:36 PM   #557
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:48 AM
a little research on this decision shows it is a big loss for AZ 1070 and a big win for the Administration's challenge of that law.

3 of the 4 provisions were decisively struck down 5-3, it would have been 6-3

the one that was left standing, the court says once it gets challenged they may look at it again

Quote:
Jun 25, 2012

Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona law The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional three parts of Arizona's controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants.

The court, however, left standing the "check your papers" part of the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that they are in the country illegally.

The court indicated that section could face further legal challenges when implemented.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 11:06 PM   #558
War Child
 
Dfit00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 893
Local Time: 03:48 PM
The major conclusion in all of this is that heat brutalizes people.
__________________
Dfit00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2012, 11:56 PM   #559
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
What you fail to realise is that globalisation has proved itself to be the most spectacularly ruinous mistake, made collectively by Western nations, since the appeasement that led to the Second World War.
Do you believe that a life of piecemeal rural subsistence farming is more advantageous to an individual in a developing nation than earning a relatively better wage in a manufacturing-based industrial hub, or should we just quarantine the "lessor" nations of the world and let them work out their own science for building infrastructure, combating things like malaria, or getting out of the pre-information age?
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:03 AM   #560
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 03:48 PM
[QUOTE=INDY500;7534299]High court rejects parts of Ariz. immigration law – USATODAY.com

Quote:
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law on Monday, but allowed one of the key provisions to stand in a highly anticipated split decision.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.

Although it is illegal to hire an illegal alien in this country only federal authorities may enforce that provision of the law apparently? So when the feds are derelict or simply lack resources to patrol the border, enforce workplace laws and deport those here illegally the border states just have to pay the price I guess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizens United Decision
Justice Scalia joined the opinion of the Court, but also wrote a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Alito in full and by Justice Thomas in part. Scalia addressed Justice Stevens' dissent, specifically with regard to the original understanding of the First Amendment. Scalia stated that Stevens' dissent was "in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment...It never shows why 'the freedom of speech' that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form."

via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission
If that is the particular guy on the SCOTUS you are getting behind, good luck, bud. Your country is going to need a rape kit in ten years to figure out what happened to it.
__________________
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2012, 12:17 AM   #561
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Scalia might as well have his own show on Fox.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 05:42 PM   #562
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:48 PM
clearly.

Quote:
Justice Scalia must resign

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Wednesday, June 27, 12:21 PM

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to resign from the Supreme Court.

He’d have a lot of things to do. He’s a fine public speaker and teacher. He’d be a heck of a columnist and blogger. But he really seems to aspire to being a politician — and that’s the problem.

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

“After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the secretary of homeland security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants,” Scalia said. “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

What boggles the mind is that Scalia thought it proper to jump into this political argument. And when he went on to a broader denunciation of federal policies, he sounded just like an Arizona Senate candidate.


“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem,” the politician-justice proclaimed. “Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

“Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Cue the tea party rally applause.

As it happens, Obama has stepped up immigration enforcement. But if the 76-year-old justice wants to dispute this, he is perfectly free as a citizen to join the political fray and take on the president. But he cannot be a blatantly political actor and a justice at the same time.

Unaccountable power can lead to arrogance. That’s why justices typically feel bound by rules and conventions that Scalia seems to take joy in ignoring. Recall a 2004 incident. Three weeks after the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case over whether the White House needed to turn over documents from an energy task force that Dick Cheney had headed, Scalia went off on Air Force Two for a duck-hunting trip with the vice president.

Scalia scoffed at the idea that he should recuse himself. “My recusal is required if . . . my ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ ” he wrote in a 21-page memo. Well, yes. But there was no cause for worry, Scalia explained, since he never hunted with Cheney “in the same blind or had other opportunity for private conversation.”

Don’t you feel better? And can you just imagine what the right wing would have said if Vice President Biden had a case before the court and went duck hunting with Justice Elena Kagan?

Then there was the speech Scalia gave at Switzerland’s University of Fribourg a few weeks before the court was to hear a case involving the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

“I am astounded at the world reaction to Guantanamo,” he declared in response to a question. “We are in a war. We are capturing these people on the battlefield. We never gave a trial in civil courts to people captured in a war. War is war and it has never been the case that when you capture a combatant, you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts. It’s a crazy idea to me.”

It was a fine speech for a campaign gathering, the appropriate venue for a man so eager to brand the things he disagrees with as crazy or mind-boggling. Scalia should free himself to pursue his true vocation. We can then use his resignation as an occasion for a searching debate over just how political this Supreme Court has become.

E.J. Dionne Jr.: Justice Scalia should resign - The Washington Post
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:11 PM   #563
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Quote:
Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question.
It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.

Quote:
Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the
federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.

Quote:
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.
That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:17 PM   #564
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It has everything to do with the case as does the Department of Homeland Security's canceling its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. In other words, basically declaring amnesty for illegals in Arizona.

It's all related to Arizona 1070 and Scalia's question in his dissent.



Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.



That is not only brilliant but no doubt true and a reminder of how far off the constitutional rails this country has strayed. No wonder the Left despises him.


I agree
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:30 PM   #565
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

Neither you nor E.J Dionne dare answer that question but listen to how Scalia answers it. And this is very important as it gets to the core of judicial originalism.
This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:51 PM   #566
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
This really just shows how little you know about the history of originalism and when it surfaced its head, what it's been used for and how. Then again it probably would not bother you that originalism is political and politically motivated tool and unrelated to legal theory and legal analysis because it is used to justify your side's judicial activism (which of course you don't think exists, because only liberal judges do that).

I've read a lot of crap from people who know nothing about the law on this case in the last few days, I've gotta say. Can't wait for the Obamacare decision, I'm sure the commentary there is going to be quite the doozy.
In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 08:53 PM   #567
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
In deciding constitutional law, Originalism is only what "legal theory" used to be before "legal theory" started giving case law precedent over the actual Constitution.
In your professional legal opinion.

Perhaps you'd prefer the French civil law system.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 10:26 PM   #568
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
French civil law system.
Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:09 PM   #569
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse

I agree
REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2012, 11:17 PM   #570
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 01:48 PM
Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com