Reply With Quote
It seems a new trend to publicize SCOTUS decisions before they make them.
lol South Korean news
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gration-law-c/
Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.
The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.
The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.
“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
The Arizona law requires all police to check with federal officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The government argues that is OK when it’s on a limited basis, but said having a state mandate for all of its law enforcement is essentially a method of trying to force the federal government to change its priorities.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
The Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued Arizona should not be allowed to impose state penalties such as jail time against illegal immigrants who try to seek jobs.
Federal law chiefly targets employers, not employees, and Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said Congress’s 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme, and Congress left employees untouched — and Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
“It seems odd to think the federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees,” she told Paul D. Clement, who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the court’s term this summer.
Only eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elana Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she was the Obama administration’s solicitor general in 2010, when the law was being debated in Arizona.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure into law, was present for the arguments, as were members of Congress who follow the immigration issue: Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House immigration subcommittee, and Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who has fought for an immigration crackdown.
It seems a new trend to publicize SCOTUS decisions before they make them.
lol South Korean news
Like clockwork.. the Roberts' 5-4 court is a reliable conservative voice.
Conservatives are undefeated with the Roberts' court..
Who is publishing a decision?
I thought it was an article that would interest the political junkies in here.
gfy...
i love you too.Who is publishing a decision?
I thought it was an article that would interest the political junkies in here.
gfy...
The only reason why its not publishing a decision is because you put a question mark behind it. Its all about the wording. Don't play coy.
Look at GGA's reaction as if its a foregone conclusion. Reporting like this flavors the reaction with bias once it is made.
lol South Korean news anyway.
I guess they are going to keep us hanging on, until they decide.
A question mark means exactly that. a question. Don't play stupid.
BTW, I have no ing idea what you mean by south Korean News.
CosmicCowboy is Full of ?
CosmicCowboy Fellating Goats?
CosmicCowboy Experimenting With Gay Sex?
Like I said, don't be coy.
And if you don't know what I mean by SK news then that means you don't know about your source.
So they made up those direct quotes from the justices?
Did the le reference those quotes? You are being coy again. The le assumed a conclusion. Its tabloid 'journalism.'
Ah, the wise latina:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/us...m.html?_r=2&hp
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal wing and its first Hispanic justice, told Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., referring to a central part of his argument.
“Why don’t you try to come up with something else?” Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Verrilli.
You aren't smart enough to draw your own conclusions after reading direct quotes from the justices?
You have to rely on someone else's interpretation to tell you what to think?
SCOTUS dislike some of the AZ law, don't care about other pieces.
Now youre just being dumb. I obviously can draw my own conclusions. My point is that SK news does it for you. Most people are intellectually lazy. that le encourages that.You aren't smart enough to draw your own conclusions after reading direct quotes from the justices?
You have to rely on someone else's interpretation to tell you what to think?
Hopefully Arizona wins so other states can start following suit and we finally get this problem taken care of.
If USA has the jobs, they will come (if N. MX drug war violence allows)
The USA (housing market, etc) has no jobs, so they leave.
Heard an interesting report that this was done with the intention of losing
There is the chance that it will be a tied decision, then the ninth
court decision will prevail. Really solving nothing. But making the
Liberals happy.
Not that that's a bad thing but, I'm not so sure the "Smart Latina" is on board with the liberal perspective in this case, either.
So, if it's a 5-3 or 6-2 or, God forbid, and 8-0 decision against the government; what say you then?
More likely to be a 5-3 vote with Kagan out.
of course you're ok with an activist court..lol
IMO judicial activism is a hallmark of liberalism, not the opposite.
dunno why people try to draw party lines on something as broad as judicial restraint vs activism..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
