June 25, 2012

Justice Scalia "is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children...."

Writes Amy Howe, covering the Supreme Court live at SCOTUSblog. Scalia is speaking in connection with his dissenting opinion in Arizona v. United StatesPDF — but this new development isn't part of the case.

ADDED: Here's the relevant material from Scalia's dissenting opinion:
It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is [sic] not the problem here. 
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 under the age of 30.
If an individual unlawfully present in the United States
“• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
“• has continuously resided in the United States for at least five years . . . ,
“• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education develop­ ment certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran . . . ,
“• has not been convicted of a [serious crime]; and
“• is not above the age of thirty,”
then U. S. immigration officials have been directed to “defe[r] action” against such individual “for a period of two years, subject to renewal.” The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conduct­ing as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the nonenforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference 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 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.

115 comments:

edutcher said...

Give him Hell, Tony.

phx said...

Is it appropriate for a SCJ to make comments from the bench off-topic?

Spare me right-wing diatribes. I really don't know the answer to this and I'm hoping for a real answer from people who do, regardless of political persuasion.

Matthew Sablan said...

Phx: Given the quote now added, it looks appropriate.

phx said...

Matthew Thanks. Yeah I was thinking I should know what the quote was before even asking.

Beta Rube said...

Did the President's SOTU shot at the Supremes invite this kind of talk?

Tom Spaulding said...

Spare me right-wing diatribes.

I suggest you put this on a Post-It note and place it near your computer...just in case you ever venture towards typing 'left-wing diatribes" on Althouse.

Thanks.

phx said...

Tom, no in this instance I was genuinely curious and didn't want an answer from someone who wasn't actually informed.

You can resume your right-wing diatribes folks.

PatCA said...

What a country! Where a justice can say that el jefe's acts boggle the mind...and still be a free man.

Obama has brought this on to himself, and his defeat (on Thursday) as well with his huffing and puffing and EOs.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Did the President's SOTU shot at the Supremes invite this kind of talk?"

-- Yes. There was a good bit of discussion about the decorum of it. Scalia might have gone a bit too far, basically, he is politely saying that he thinks the administration is lying about their reasoning for what they are doing. But, he did it in about as nice a way as possible.

Scott M said...

Tom, no in this instance I was genuinely curious and didn't want an answer from someone who wasn't actually informed.

Ah, I see. Because nobody on the left wing could possibly be uninformed. Noted. Post-it'd.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

One minor quibble with Tony's analysis. The wife works for DHS and she says that pretty much everything at CIS (Citizenship and Immig Svcs) is fee funded. They are scrambling around to figure out how to administer this new Obama benefit. I don't know if the wif's comment about fee funding is just the CIS portion, or if it also covers a cross-agency fee to the FBI or ICE for the "security check"

My point is that it may be that the Dreamy kids (30 y/os that they are), pay the full freight, once implemented. It may also be that when CIS sets the fee at $900 per app, that Obama does a second tier pander and waves the fee, meaning Tony's fully correct.

phx said...

Scott M, well I didn't want to actually come out and say that.....

Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

Scott M, well I didn't want to actually come out and say that.....

Why not?

phx said...

it was just a suggestion to consider that if "right-wing diatribes" are a bad thing, then surely so are "left-wing diatribes". "Fairness" and whatnot.

I completely agree. I did make a quick assessment that the odds of an immediate left-wing diatribe to my question were pretty low. Althouse's blog whatnot.

You can now resume you out-of-hand dismissals of people you judge to be uninformed.

I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. No offense intended. : )

phx said...

Scott M because it's too early to troll?

garage mahal said...

Scalia would fit right into the set at Fox and Friends. I'm surprised he didn't come out and ask for Obama's birth certificate.

Tom Spaulding said...


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. No offense intended. : )


While your concern is noted, I remain un-offended by your opinions and (mis)characterizations. Hell, even my feelings are unhurt.

I'm a conservative, remember?

phx said...

Tom: That was pulling your leg a little - kind of like I'm pulling Scott M's. I don't actually know you to be a conservative other than your posts in this thread.

Most people here would think I'm a liberal but I don't think that of myself so much.

gk1 said...

I fully expect punk Obama to spike the ball on this ruling. Showing all the class we have come to expect from a partisan hack. Arizona will have to amend its laws to protect the borders obama inc. is not interested in defending. Yeah I am sure Arizona is in play now.

Scott M said...

Most people here would think I'm a liberal but I don't think that of myself so much.

And Bill Maher thinks Hillary is a centrist and Pauline Kael didn't know anyone that voted for Nixon. And...it all depends on what echo chamber you inhabit.

Carnifex said...

@GarageMahal

Wouldn't matter if Scalia and the whole court did ask for a BC. Zero would just tell them to shut up, and people like you would trot out the forgery, and say, "Yeah! Shut up you meanies! Just because Zero has an invalid SSN, a forged BC, and a forged Selective Service Registration Card doesn't prove he WASN't born in Hawaii!"

But then fools are born every minute.

As far as Scalia's remarks? Pffft...He didn't like what Zero did. Neither do I. I don't think either one of us was going to vote for the Mighty Kenyan anyway. Beyond that, it just makes for a talking point.

Scott M said...

But then fools are born every minute.

Speaking of fools, anyone heard anything out of Mick on this subject? I suspect his plot to keep Obama from the ballot in all 50 states is going all ahoo.

Hagar said...

So Arizona can continue to question arrestees and gather evidence of their immigration status.

Can the State then use the evidence gathered to sue Federal officials for malfeasance in office, or something, for failing to enforce the Federal laws?

Isn't there an obligation in the Constitution for the Federal Government to protect the several States from injury? Common defense, and all that?

phx said...

And Bill Maher thinks Hillary is a centrist and Pauline Kael didn't know anyone that voted for Nixon. And...it all depends on what echo chamber you inhabit.

I suppose there's truth to that but I'm not that committed ideologically. I have a tendency to lean left on many issues (no way exclusively however), but on the whole I think the way we get to the answer is generally more important than the answer.

Either a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative approach are fair ways to run a government. I personally favor moderate liberal but I'm okay with its opposite and the people who align with that.

Carnifex said...

There's an old saying that the winner gets to write history. Why does the losing side of a SCOTUS decision write anything at all. I know it's cool for law buffs and historians to have this insight, but to the real world it doesn't matter, does it? Can one of you deep thinking law types explain it to me?

Ps. Use small words. I am from kentucky.

Carnifex said...

Yeah Mick's case is still goin' on in Florida. I see a blurb about it once in a while...beyond that, I can't follow most court proceedings. But then I wouldn't expect someone not in the cpnstruction biz to care about the differences in the ratio of the mix in their concrete.(They use different ratios for different conditions, not including other additives)

Thorley Winston said...

There’s still a remedy available – a future Congress can amend federal immigration law to expressly permit States to pass their own laws to enforce the national ones or assess State penalties for violation of federal laws and send it to the next President for signature. Previously States had to rely on the Bush DOJ’s interpretation that they could do just that but just as with executive orders, what one administration can do, the next can undo. Something to keep in mind the next time one thinks it’s “safe” to vote for a presidential candidate on the grounds that they wouldn’t be able to get their more objectionable policy wishes through Congress.

edutcher said...

"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."

Once again, Scalia says Zero talks out of both sides of his mouth.

garage mahal said...

Wouldn't matter if Scalia and the whole court did ask for a BC. Zero would just tell them to shut up, and people like you would trot out the forgery, and say, "Yeah! Shut up you meanies! Just because Zero has an invalid SSN, a forged BC, and a forged Selective Service Registration Card doesn't prove he WASN't born in Hawaii!"

By my count, Obama has provided two birth certificates. You really think they are faked?

Scott M said...

By my count, Obama has provided two birth certificates. You really think they are faked?

Nope. The social security number thingy is still a bit fuzzy though.

Aridog said...

phx said:

...on the whole I think the way we get to the answer is generally more important than the answer.

Okay, can you explain what you mean here...it is still rather vague. No offense intended, but it isn't clear to me what you mean.

It sounds eerily like the now popular government format, where "process" is everything, never mind the "product" or service", ... if any in the end.

I am a retired "Fed" as well as military soul. In other words, I've watch this phenomena grow over time in conjunction with the inverted federal management pyramid.

Dust Bunny Queen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
garage mahal said...

The social security number thingy is still a bit fuzzy though.

For some people. I'm sure.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

This is the most interesting portion, to me, of Scalia's dissent

The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” ante, at 15. It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona….

AND

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

This is an assault on the sovereign concept of the States. In Scalia's opinion the States have a right to defend their own borders. They may not have the ability to conduct operations of Federal immigration policy: aka deporting illegal aliens from the United States, but they should have the ability to deport them from their own SOVEREIGN borders.

This is NOT over.

David said...

"The Justices read the papers too."

Scott M said...

For some people. I'm sure.

I don't recall a cogent reason ever having been given as to why it was done the way it was. As I didn't care to investigate it, I never did find out anything more than the aforementioned fuzziness.

Robin said...

Typical Mahal, slander Scalia by claiming he holds an opinion that Scalia has never expressed at all.

Aridog said...

A question I have asked elsewhere ...

The Federalist No. 28, Alexander Hamilton writing: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress."

Hamilton was not exactly a "states rights" kind of guy.

This seems to talk about the dual sovereignty aspect of Federalism. In theory then, Arizona may pass such laws as necessary for its protection when federal officials do not act on their behalf for said protection? I'm no Constitutional scholar, but doesn't the 10th Amendment permit states to act when not specifically prohibited by the Constitution? IOW, to me, states may not enforce federal law, but they can pass and enforce their own law(s) providing said acts are not specifically prohibited and thus are reserved to the states when necessary.

If I'm wrong or misguided, please enlighten me.

Michael K said...

"Either a moderate liberal or a moderate conservative approach are fair ways to run a government. "

Where does libertarian fall in your spectrum ? Most liberals (I dislike the term in its current use) are focused on social conservatives who are often just as statist in intent as they are. Leftists, (my preferred term) are so focused on social issues they never even recognize that this election will be decided on libertarian issues.

The vilified TEA Party, for example, is almost totally focused on libertarian issues.

rick rogers said...

I like Scalia more with each passing day

Gabriel said...

@Scott M: I never did find out anything more than the aforementioned fuzziness.

There's no reason to spread Birther FUD about the President's Social Security number.

If you don't even know what the issue is, then why are you bringing it up?

It's the laziest form of character assassination, to bring up smears you don't even specify.

Party A makes a baseless accusation is bad enough. When Party B says "I don't even know what Party A was going on about but clearly there's something fishy going on", that's, to my mind, even worse.

ricpic said...

Arizona's attempt to enforce the federal immigration law that the feds won't enforce is unconstitutional?

Scott M said...

There's no reason to spread Birther FUD about the President's Social Security number.If you don't even know what the issue is, then why are you bringing it up?

I do know what the issue is. I do not know if it was ever answered reasonably. I'm willing to accept reasonableness to the nearest tenth of a plausibility unit.

GM brought up the birther issue, not me. I brought up the SS issue because I had not seen that it was ever really addressed. I said as much.

Why do you wish to ill?

(listening to Beastie Boys...you'll have to let that one slide)

Darrell said...

Obama's lawyer in New Jersey stipulated that they were fake. That stopped the judge from hearing a busload of experts ready to testify that they were fake. But do go on, all you lying sons of bitches that feel compelled to do so.

machine said...

“desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers.”

Scalia has officially jumped the shark...

Kirby Olson said...

Obama thinks he gets to decide everything.

Gabriel said...

@Scott M: Actually, it was addressed, because SSNs are not assigned at birth and are not assigned geographically.

As for the actual topic the Arizona law, I would point out that it is a FEDERAL law that all legal immigrants carry their identifying documents at all times. Says so right on my wife's green card. In Arizona or out of it.

So when the SC struck that down, that doesn't mean immigrants don't have to carry their documents.

cubanbob said...

Thorley Winston said...

Spot on. The court has just instructed the next congress and administration precisely what to do to enable AZ and any other state to pass such legislation that will comply with the SCOTUS.

As for Obama's specious reasoning about the lack of resources to uphold the law the government is required to uphold, the simple solution would be for the president to ask congress either to provide the resources or modify the law. In short put the monkey on the congress's back where it belongs.

machine said...

"independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,"...


Whew...glad that's cleared up too...

SHARK!

garage mahal said...

Obama's lawyer in New Jersey stipulated that they were fake

No, they didn't stipulate that.

phx said...

Where does libertarian fall in your spectrum ? Most liberals (I dislike the term in its current use) are focused on social conservatives who are often just as statist in intent as they are. Leftists, (my preferred term) are so focused on social issues they never even recognize that this election will be decided on libertarian issues.

I would prefer the government stay out of my hair in most cases. Unlike a libertarian however, I don't have a problem with regulation of commerce or industry, although I'm open to specific complaints about too much government regulation.

I just don't think libertarianism as a guiding principle is appropriate for the 21st century, and the corps have far more resources than a poor citizen like myself - I think that's true even if I was willing to form union with other like-minded citizens.

I don't confuse social conservatives with economic conservatives or libertarians - although some fly both colors. I think a lot of "liberals" really misunderstand their opponents.

But in many cases IMO the Tea Party and many (non-social) conservatives have hurt themselves by the way they enforce their arguments. JM respectful opinion.

Scott M said...

Scalia has officially jumped the shark...

Was that over or around Obama bowing to yet another foreign leader?

Darrell said...

Obama’s attorney Alexandra Hill admitted that there is no evidence that the birth certificate the White House put online is authentic and that it likely was “manufactured.” Hill then proclaimed the birth certificate cannot be used as evidence to confirm Obama’s lack of natural born citizenship status and the issue therefore is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot.”

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/obamas-lawyer-admits-his-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

Define "is" Garage and choke on it you cocksucker.

phx said...

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/04/17/obamas-lawyer-admits-his-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

WTF kind of source is that?

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Scalia would fit right into the set at Fox and Friends. I'm surprised he didn't come out and ask for Obama's birth certificate.



Now you're just chewing on the backdrop.

Darrell said...

One that has everything there.

The NYT and the rest won't cover it, so it doesn't exist? It's a good thing you Lefties took over the media then, isn't it? The crowd with the pitchforks wil take longer to catch on.

Revenant said...

Is it appropriate for a SCJ to make comments from the bench off-topic?

Pointing out that the government's argument is based on an obvious lie isn't "off topic" in a court case.

Gabriel said...

Darrell's source lies. What the attorney actually said was, "I understand that they have great arguments, but I don’t see how that is relevant in this case.”

Gabriel said...

Note that Darrell does not link to a document or even a transcript. He links to a paraphrase of an editorial that cites tiny snippets of what was said in court, and then Darrell calls that "stipulation."

Revenant said...

Obama's lawyer in New Jersey stipulated that they were fake.

Please die.

garage mahal said...

Darrell's source lies. What the attorney actually said was, "I understand that they have great arguments, but I don’t see how that is relevant in this case.”

The lawyers argued a.) a birth certificate wasn't required by law b.) an image on a website couldn't be used as evidence. That's it.

Birthers are a funny bunch.

Darrell said...

an image on a website couldn't be used as evidence

Then why did Obama present it as evidence of anything and why did the the media (and people here)call "case closed?"

That link even has the videos of the lawyer's statement and the court hearing, yet you would think the whole thing was a single paragraph given the followup comments.

And Revenant--I'd say the "same to you!" except you're already a visible ghost or animated corpse. Unless you're a fucking liar about that too.

Darrell said...

What the attorney actually said was, "I understand that they have great arguments, but I don’t see how that is relevant in this case.”

Oh, is that all she said Garage? You gonna stick with that?

garage mahal said...

Then why did Obama present it as evidence of anything and why did the the media (and people here)call "case closed?"

Because it's not required by law to be submitted to get on the ballot. I'm sure Romney didn't submit one either. Or anyone else, ever.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Darrell:Then why did Obama present it as evidence of anything and why did the the media (and people here)call "case closed?"

And what has that to do with a court case? Exhibit A: OJ Simpson. The vast majority of Americans are convinced of his guilt despite his acquittal. How can that possibly be? Because what really happened what what a court recognizes as relevant are not the same thing.

Obama was really born in Hawaii, and the pdf he posted was one piece evidence of that. But it's not necessarily legal evidence. OJ's "If I Did It" is further evidence of his guilt in real life, but not to the court system.

It's a very simple concept for anyone who's not a Birther.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Darrell: Garage didn;t say that, I did.

Why didn't you link to a transcript, instead of a third-party paraphrase of someone else's Birther editorial?

Because you can;t, you know perfectly well it would destroy your case. You have to present snippets out of context, you got nothin.

phx said...

That link even has the videos of the lawyer's statement and the court hearing, yet you would think the whole thing was a single paragraph given the followup comments.

That's almost three hours of video, and someone's supposed to find the relevant portion(s) where Obama's lawyers, according to Darrell, "admitted that there is no evidence that the birth certificate the White House put online is authentic and that it likely was 'manufactured.'"

Darrell said...

That's almost three hours of video, and someone's supposed to find the relevant portion...

Are you telling me that you called it a lie before you reviewed all the material presented? That's sloppy work. Raise your game.

phx said...

"Obama's Attorney...admitted that there is no evidence that the birth certificate the White House put online is authentic and that it likely was 'manufactured.'"

Instead of a link to a web site made of tin foil hats, how about the quote from Obama's attorney? What was the attorney's actual quote?

Darrell said...

I'm sure you review all the raw material before you declare your Kos/DU/Talking Points Memo links or analysis accurate and truthful.
I'm very sure.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gabriel Hanna said...

@Darrell: Put up or shut up. Provide the whole context or GTFO.

Tell us where in the video she says that the birth certificate is fake and manufactured.

You can't. You don't even know. All you could do was quote somebody who claimed they heard it, who didn't quote more than three sentences.

Once again, you got nuthin'. All you can do is give paraphrases of out-of-context snippets.

This is why Birthers have no respect from anyone, not even 9/11 Troofers.

phx said...

you declare your Kos/DU/Talking Points Memo links or analysis accurate and truthful.

Funny enough, I've never once used any of those sites for a reference or a source or a link.

But I'll take your good advice and go back to work upping my game. Starting with a deeeeep study of "Fellowship of Minds" (crazy echo effect here).

leslyn said...

@Carnifex, 1037,

Yes, dissenting, concurring, and dissenting/concurring opinions do matter. They can point the way for the direction the law may take on a similar issue. Even footnotes may just go ahead and achieve the force of law (Brown v. Texas), and the dissent in Escobedo v. Illinois laid the foundation for the reasoning in Miranda v. Arizona--even though arguably in Escobedo the dissenters did not intend the result in Miranda.

Aridog said...

From Scalia's comment vis a vis Arizona & immigration law(s) to birther issue(s) in New Jersey. Amazing.

Oh, look .... CLOACA!!

Darrell said...

Why don't you link to the New York Times article? Or the transcript. You put up or shut up. I linked to an article that said backed uo what I said. I judged the birth certificate posted on Obama's government website to be a fake based on my own examination of the image and the multiple pixel sizes on a single image. An image made with any single lens--camera, photocopier, scanner is not going to show varying pixel sizes. It's an impossibility. You get varing pixel sizes when you combine (clone) images of varying resolutions and sizes.

leslyn said...

@Carnifex,

Go way back to Marbury v. Madison to see unusual results. In Marbury, even though the Court declined to decide the case before it, it used the opportunity to establish the power of the Court to "say what the law is."

leslyn said...

IMO Scalia has exceeded his brief with his immigration comments--thus destroying any illusion that the Court is "impartial." But that's Scalia. He's getting old and apparently would prefer to be a Fox News commenter rather than a working Justice. He's like the Honeybadger.

Darrell said...

On Obama's posted "birth certificate"..."I certify this is a true copy or abstract of txe (sic) record on file in The Hawaii State Department of Health [all uppercase]" In the signature below this statement, there is a Smiley Face in the first "A" of "Alvin."
What are the odds that "the" would be misspelled on the rubber stamp used to produce this? What are the odds that a Smiley face would appear on a signature in a legal document?

As I said at the time, I don't know if Obama has an actual birth certificate--I'd like to think he does--but what he put on that government website in April 2011wasn't it. It was a [another] middle finger to those asking to see it.

Hagar said...

Obama is actually an individual of species 8472?

wyo sis said...

"Shut up." he explained.

Matthew Sablan said...

"IMO Scalia has exceeded his brief with his immigration comments--thus destroying any illusion that the Court is "impartial." But that's Scalia."

-- So, you're OK with the administration lying and refusing to enforce immigration laws? That's what Scalia is chiding them on. If it is the administration's prerogative how it chooses to enforce the law, I can't wait till we have a Republican in office so that the executive branch loses the right to ignore enforcing laws it does not like.

ndspinelli said...

It's not "Tony." His nickname is "Nino."

Scott M said...

Obama is actually an individual of species 8472?

Nerd.

leslyn said...

@Matthew Sablan: If you can't stay on topic, then please go somewhere else so that you avoid putting words in my mouth.

Matthew Sablan said...

"@Matthew Sablan: If you can't stay on topic, then please go somewhere else so that you avoid putting words in my mouth."

-- It's a legitimate question. Scalia's comments have to do with the position the administration has taken. He is not taking a partisan, rah-rah, position. He is making an argument based on the sovereignty of the states. So, unless you think that is a partisan position to take (that states have rights), I don't understand how we get to Scalia somehow destroying the illusion of impartiality.

Cedarford said...

If States cannot enforce who is in the State that gains social benefits from State taxpayers....then if this enforcement is a pure Federal responsibility...then it stands to reason the State is not responsible for paying for healthcare, schooling of illegal aliens.

The States should begin a policy of not budgeting school resources for illegals or reimbursing hospitals and doctors for services made to foreign nationals in their states illegally.
Let the schools and medical industry join in screaming at the Feds for not enforcing the law.

garage mahal said...

-- So, you're OK with the administration lying and refusing to enforce immigration laws? That's what Scalia is chiding them on.

You and Scalia must get all your news from Fox. Under Obama there have been record deportations.

Matthew Sablan said...

"You and Scalia must get all your news from Fox. Under Obama there have been record deportations."

-- And? If he is also choosing to particularly punish Arizona, you have no problem with that?

garage mahal said...

-- And?

You just got done saying Obama is lying and refusing to enforce immigration laws. I swear you guys you aren't even trying anymore. Reality comes last.

Matthew Sablan said...

"You just got done saying Obama is lying and refusing to enforce immigration laws. I swear you guys you aren't even trying anymore. Reality comes last."

-- You realize that was in response to his reasoning given for not being able to enforce the law in Arizona? Where he has, today, specifically told people to literally not answer the phone when Arizona calls?

Hagar said...

The DoJ argument in the Arizona case basically was that the State was interfering with the Federal Government's right to pick and choose which laws to enforce, where, and how.

Hagar said...

Actually, Federal Agencie's ...

Hagar said...

Geez,
agencies'

Hagar said...

and ... ,when ...

hdhouse said...

http://www.opusonemedia.blogspot.com/2012/06/your-papers-are-not-in-order-comrade.html

Dust Bunny Queen said...

- So, you're OK with the administration lying and refusing to enforce immigration laws? That's what Scalia is chiding them on.

Garage said: You and Scalia must get all your news from Fox. Under Obama there have been record deportations.


Well...Bozo, here is some news from the Washington Times.
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

They are refusing to enforce the laws...period.

Chump.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Arizona's next step should be what Scalia said/hinted at.

If an illegal alien is caught in the SOVEREIGN STATE of Arizona, they should be deported over the border of Arizona. Nothing to do with Federal law. "We aren't deporting you from the United States, just our sovereign state. Just protecting their own borders."

Send them all to California. Most of the illegals seem to be here anyway and we are lost so I guess it can't sink our ship any faster.

If you can't control what laws and regulations you want within your OWN state that are granted to the States by the Constitution and not a part of the Federal powers, then why should any State remain in the Union?

Joining the "Union" was voluntary. Time to secede from the tyranny of Washington DC. Not joking.

Roger J. said...

Leslyn-of course marbury v madison established judicial review; on the other hand Andrew Jackson laid bare the failure of judicial review: "Mr Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." And Jackson did what he damned well wanted to do Mr Marshall's opinion nothwithstanding.

The power to carry out a judicial decision rests solely with the executives of the states and the United States. That seems to me to be a significant issue confronting the judicial branch and clearly not addressed in our constitution.

phx said...

Joining the "Union" was voluntary. Time to secede from the tyranny of Washington DC. Not joking.

I never think you're joking with your extremist anti-American sentiments.

leslyn said...

Roger J,

Absolutely right. The Supreme Court has no external enforcement powers. It has no army. It has police, but they exist to protect the Court, not to carry out any of its decisions.

It relies solely on the assent of the other branches of government to recognize its power.

Amazing.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I never think you're joking with your extremist anti-American sentiments

There is nothing extremist about the idea that a State that voluntarily joined the Union retains the right to leave the Union. It is written into most State Constitutions.

I am very much pro America. Pro the original concept of the United States and anti the extreme Federal Government over reach that is taking away our freedoms bit by bit.

"“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government,” said Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Just as a group has a right to form, so too does it have a right to disband, to subdivide itself, or withdraw from a larger unit.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison held that the U.S. Constitution was a compact of sovereign states which had delegated very specific powers but not sovereignty to a central government-powers which could be recalled any time. By international law sovereignty cannot be surrendered by implication, only by an express act. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there any express renunciation of sovereignty by the states."

phx said...

There is nothing extremist about the idea that a State that voluntarily joined the Union retains the right to leave the Union.

Saying "It's time to secede" is what makes you an extremist.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Saying "It's time to secede" is what makes you an extremist.

You need to get out more.

phx said...

You need to get out more.

Uh huh.

Hagar said...

If what the Supremes said here was that there cannot be State statute making it a State crime to commit what already is a Federal crime, how will this play out?

There has to be a myriad of such statutes across the 50 States and Territories. Just think of kidnapping, bank robberies, anything having to do with alcohol, etc., etc., etc.

Can anyone now convicted in State courts of such crimes now sue for release and damages on the grounds that they could only rightfully have been charged in Federal court?

Has the Supreme Court opened a Pandora's box here?

Revenant said...

Saying "It's time to secede" is what makes you an extremist.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

Saying "It's time to secede" is what makes you an extremist.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy.


That's pretty funny. Apparently you don't understand your fallacies.

Now Dust Bunny Queen's "You need to get out more" - the implication being that there are so many more who agree with her extremist ideologies, that's an argumentum ad populum.

gk1 said...

I was getting worked up over the ruling then I remembered obama and his crowd are just a bunch of small time hacks that only act for momentary political gain. Nothing they have done is durable or will last once they slither out of office. IN the mean time Arizona and the other states won't sit around while these washington assholes leave the gate wide open. This will just end in another obama humiliation.

Revenant said...

That's pretty funny. Apparently you don't understand your fallacies.

I understand them perfectly well -- your sole objection to DBQ's statement was that it is unpopular.

phx said...

I understand them perfectly well -- your sole objection to DBQ's statement was that it is unpopular.

I stated my objection as clearly as I possibly could. I said her views were "extremist".

A) Where did you get the idea that I objected to her statement because it was unpopular?

B) Where did you get the idea that you understood fallacies?