Arizona bill 1070

[Irvine511]

Scalia might as well have his own show on Fox.

[Irvine511]

clearly.

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

[INDY500]

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.

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.

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.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

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.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

French civil law system.

Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I agree

REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.

[INDY500]

Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I dunno, I think those words could apply to quite a few people's posts around here lately.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.

Not every opportunity for snark has to be taken.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Now speaking of, "nothing to do with the case in question."

Again, goes to show how little you actually know about the legal system.

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

REALLY? THAT'S FUCKlNG GREAT.

We are so glad you stopped by to tell us this.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Immature, rude, out of bounds, inappropriate, asinine... the list of adjectives to describe Phils' post are endless.

Haha. This is rich.

I use one profanity (which was admittedly unnecessary) and this?

[INDY500]

California Senate passes 'anti-Arizona' bill to limit federal detainers on illegal immigrants - CNN

July 7, 2012
The California Senate has passed a so-called "anti-Arizona" bill to prevent racial profiling by police and allow local law agencies to ignore federal requests to detain nonviolent illegal immigrants for deportation, a state lawmaker said.

Rahm Emanuel Immigration Support: Mayor Aims To Make Chicago More Immigrant-Friendly

July 10, 2012
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday proposed a new ordinance that would specifically block undocumented immigrants in Chicago from being detained unless they were convicted of a serious crime or wanted on a criminal warrant.

I'm so glad the Arizona SCOTUS ruling made clear once-and-for-all that immigration law is under federal jurisdiction only.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Quote:
But now, the adminstration will stop the deportation of young people who meet these criteria: 1.) Came to the United States under the age of sixteen; 2.) Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum; 3.) Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; 4.) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; 5.) Are not above the age of thirty.

Hey Irvine, how do you propose we verify all this?

Answer:

A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.

Top Immigration Officials Describe Border Chaos Resulting From Admin's Amnesty Policy- YouTube

Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”

Wow, aren't we all shocked?

I'd love to hear an Obama supporter defend this.