December 12, 2011

"The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants."

AP reports:
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.

The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.

The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.
Ah! 2012 is shaping up to be quite a fascinating year for law-and-politics blogging.

Amusingly, I was just asking people to remember that Arizona law.

60 comments:

EDH said...

There's that violence-inciting word again: "targeting".

Scott M said...

Ah! 2012 is shaping up to be quite a fascinating year for law-and-politics blogging.

Granted, but as I get older, and with four children to ride herd over, I am less and less enthused about living in such interesting times.

edutcher said...

A decision for AZ and one against ZeroCare may give the Demos a tad of motivation to get out and vote, assuming no market crash or foreign policy disaster.

Coketown said...

The Washington Times is reporting that Elana Kagan has recused herself from hearing this case, as she was the administration's solicitor General when the law was being challenged.

Should we speculate wildly on what this might mean for when it's Obamacare's turn on the docket?

Scott M said...

So...if she recuses on the AZ case, doesn't that set a precedent, for her personally if nothing else, regarding the Obamacare case?

MayBee said...

So...if she recuses on the AZ case, doesn't that set a precedent, for her personally if nothing else, regarding the Obamacare case?

It could go either way. She could say, "I had the integrity to recuse myself when I thought it was necessary. That's proof that my refusal to recuse myself from the Obamacare case is also a choice with integrity."

Scott M said...

"I had the integrity to recuse myself when I thought it was necessary. That's proof that my refusal to recuse myself from the Obamacare case is also a choice with integrity."

Excepting, of course, that she was SG during both of the cases in question, correct? If that's the case, I don't see how her choice one way versus her choice in another, when all variables are nearly the same, could be construed as integrity.

Bruce Hayden said...

Should we speculate wildly on what this might mean for when it's Obamacare's turn on the docket?

I will give here credit here for doing the right thing. It is likely to be a lot iffier with ObamaCare, since her vote there may be critical.

MayBee said...

Scott M-
I'm not saying it would look like integrity to the outside observer. Just that she could claim it.

Scott M said...

I will give here credit here for doing the right thing.

Ditto in spades. I actually feel a bit guilty at being surprised by the news, but the cynic in my says her decision on whether to recuse on Obamacare will clear that right up.

Would that I feel twice as guilty then.

traditionalguy said...

kagan must be doing the Marxis/Leninist dance, which goes one step backwards and two steps forward. The Obamacare socialized medicine triumph is the Marxist's, prize second only to crushing Israel.

Scott M said...

The Obamacare socialized medicine triumph is the Marxist's, prize second only to crushing Israel.

Would it be fair to call it socialized insurance rather than medicine? On this theme, I overheard a budget meeting going on the other day and our company's owners were seriously debating dropping everyone from insurance and paying the fee when it goes into affect. They sounded like they were coming down on that side of things, but weren't happy about it.

Coketown said...

Excepting, of course, that she was SG during both of the cases in question, correct?

She was SG when both laws passed, but I think she stepped down (in May of 2010) before having to represent the US regarding Obamacare. That could be the fine line she draws. In fact, the Big Controversy during Kagan's confirmation hearing was how conspicuously she was sandboxed from anything relating to Obamacare--conspicuous in that the Administration built its legal defense of the law without any input from the acting solicitor general.

gregq said...

That headline is wrong. It should say "The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on the federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in Arizona's law targeting illegal immigrants."

After all, there would be no need to take the case if they agreed with what the appeals court had rule, no?

BarryD said...

Obama: "Federalism for me, but not for thee!"

traditionalguy said...

Scott M...the payment plans are designed to run shortfalls and drive thereby out private competitors who cannot run shortfalls.
That will leave no payment plan standing except the Government's SINGLE PAYER. That has always been the goal.

traditionalguy said...

The Fast and Furious was designed to drive out the private Gun Dealers by making them the fall guys for border violence...and ONLY the Feds regulate the border...so shutting them all down will be necessary.

The EPA has quietly gone into attack mode against all American sources of carbon dioxide emitting energy...which is 95% of the energy sources we use.

No wonder the voters sense that we need Gingrich involved to take on the Marxist Planners...it takes one to know one.

Chuck66 said...

If the Federal government doesn't enforce immigration laws, a state can pass a law that mirrors a watered-down version of federal law. According to center-right lawyers.

It may be different if the state passed a law that was more restrictive than federal law.

Calypso Facto said...

I overheard a budget meeting going on the other day and our company's owners were seriously debating dropping everyone from insurance and paying the fee when it goes into affect

Here too. The owner has been magnanimous in providing a Cadillac plan to all employees with NO EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION for decades, but now that he feels like he's being unconstitutionally required to, at additional expense, he's seriously considering dropping it.

Chuck66 said...

I know a guy who is the CFO at a small hospital. There is much more to the law than most people know. The control over hospitals is deeper.

Much of it has to do with funding Obamacare, so there is much more oversite and reporting requirements for hospitals.

Chuck66 said...

traditionalGuy...yup. If you don't win at the ballot box or by passing the exact legislation you want, you do back door things to get your way.

Think about what the EPA or NLRB does. Or look at Wisconsin's voter ID law, where those who oppose it are doing everything possible to make it almost immpossible to implement it.

Levi Starks said...

Im curious as to why the supreme court even bothers to go through the pretense of arguments?
I say this since it's now a given that a political appointee is definitely going to vote in a manner that reflects the party that nominated them.
Justice Kagan could prove that she deserves to be a justice by wiping that cheshire cat grin off her face and ruling AGAINST the first big progressive agenda item that come before her. Otherwise she will be owned by the left for the next 50 years.

ricpic said...

How does Arizona's attempt to enforce already existing immigration law equate to regulating immigration law, as the Obama Administration contends?

J said...

Five papists on the SC, and most RC's are sympathetic to immigration. It might not turn out well for Freeperland.

Scott M said...

How does Arizona's attempt to enforce already existing immigration law equate to regulating immigration law, as the Obama Administration contends?

Probably along the same lines as what you're breathing out constitutes pollution, as the Obama Administration contends.

Chuck66 said...

J, you do not understand Catholic teachings. If you are a true hard-core observant Catholic (which I don't think the justices are):

A) You must work for and support laws that are consistant with Catholic teachings (such as support for open borders)

B) But as a judge, you must obey the law, and rule in ways that are consistant with the law, not your personal beliefs. Unless said law violates natural law. See the Prussian Catholic Von Stoffenberg when he tried to kill Hitler in July 1944.

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

Wrong, J!

There are SIX proud followers of the Whore of Babylon on the Supreme Court. Thomas converted over a while ago. Two Red Sea Pedestrians and one lonely, lonely Prod.

But, yes, you are right. The RC hierarchy and the mostly RC Hispanic community are easy on illegal immigration.

I'm not so sure about the other ethnics in the pews, however.

Chuck66 said...

ricpic, exactly. Arizona did not create a new immigration law in defiance of federal law. They created a tool to aid in enforcing the federal law.

In some ways, it isn't all that differnt than when Wisconsin passed a law making the drinking age 21, and included means to enforce the 21 year old drinking age. The federal gov't forces a 21 year old drinking age, but then doesn't enforce it on the state highways.

J said...

No, Chuck, you don't understand catholics (and most likely the LDS troll making sh*t up , since it can't spell "consistent")

Had you read the comment correctly you'd have noted I was suggesting the SC would probably be supportive of open borders.

Chuck66 said...

J, first of all, if you have a problem with my spelling disability, talk to WEAC. It is all their fault. I am a victim!

A true Catholic may support open borders, but as a judge, must rule in favor of the law.

J said...

Then the point holds, a fortiori.
Including Thomas it's 6 papists, and 3 jews. No protestants.

n.n said...

The supporters of uncoupled immigration, but especially unmeasured illegal immigration, don't seem to comprehend the purpose and need for administrative districts (e.g. nations).

They don't seem to care about the commensurate rise in involuntary exploitation that followed their decision to not prevent unmeasured immigration.

They also don't care for American men, women, and children who are displaced by these "immigrants".

Finally, they seem oblivious to the selective rule of law that they are enforcing and the corruption that they are fostering.

I suppose this was a means to obfuscate the progressive decline of productivity by a large minority of the population. They seem willing to gamble that the influx of people from a similar culture will not undermine and conflict with the existing culture, and will not be the source of both short and long-term repercussions for stability of our nation, states, communities, families, etc. That the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating any number of people.

This is the same game they played, and continue to play, when they artificially inflate the economy through debt accumulation in order to manifest a positive perception of the reality they have corrupted.

There is also the matter of the de facto penal colony they create in Mexico and elsewhere as they seek to deport the so-called "criminal" illegal aliens, while retaining more stable individuals and families. They are, in fact, depriving Mexico and similar of human resources necessary to properly exploit the natural resources of that land.

I find it amusing when people warn of the ramifications which follow from overpopulation, when they simultaneously support the policies which promote that condition.

Scott M said...

n.n., you continue to impress.

YoungHegelian said...

J.

You're right. No Protestants. First your bad, then came my bad.

The Protestant legal eagles in the US need to up their game, so the ethnics don't eat their lunch.

We can start an Althouse for SCOTUS movement right here and now! Because, goddammit!, we need a Protestant!

LarsPorsena said...

Chuck66 said...
J, you do not understand Catholic teachings. If you are a true hard-core observant Catholic (which I don't think the justices are):

A) You must work for and support laws that are consistant with Catholic teachings (such as support for open borders)

------------------------

Where do I find this teaching on open borders? I'm betting you can't find it.

Alex said...

The EPA has quietly gone into attack mode against all American sources of carbon dioxide emitting energy...which is 95% of the energy sources we use.

As if the American people didn't know what they were electing in 2008.

J said...

I suppose this was a means to obfuscate the progressive decline of productivity by a large minority of the population.

Wrong again Scott. That's called ...confusion.

The AZ law as originally written was overly harsh. The corrections improved it.

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

LarsPorsena, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

"2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."


It is open for debate as to whether the policy favored by 'open borders' advocates comports with this definition. I would argue, considering the last paragraph quoted, that it does not.

Christopher in MA said...

In re immigration, here's what the Cathechism of the RCC says:

"2241. The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that placed a guest under the protection of those who recieve him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

Now, note the words "to the extent they are able." No country can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants Catholic teaching does NOT require an open border policy that ignores the number of people (say) the US can take in, and the laity have a responsibility (which means, making your voice heard) in making a practical determination of what that number might be.

The Church does not teach that immigration is a wide open, so-long-as-you-can-sneak-your-ass-in-you're-home-free policy. As blogger Jimmy Akin puts it, it is a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

And while the hierarchy of the Church may be in favor of open immigration without the Catechism's caveats, it does not follow that the SC judges will hold the same opinion. Despite what you may think, a great many lay Catholics want stricter immigration controls.

Christopher in MA said...

Whoops - Craig's faster on the trigger than I. Good man.

Paco Wové said...

"...immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

Yeah, that would be pretty sweet.

Chuck66 said...

I guess I shouldn't say Catholic teachings support open borders, but that the Catholic church leadership has been a liberal organization (for good or bad) when it comes to many social issues.

Often they were on the wrong side during the cold war.

Against sending illegals back.

I say this as a Lutheran supporter of the mother church.

RichardS said...

Jefferson, of course, thought that naturalization etc. was a state task fundamentally. That was the ground of his oppostion to the Alien and the Sedition Acts. (See, for example, his second Inaugural Address for his support for state prosecution of sedition. The Kentucky Resolution is a good place to see his views on naturalization, etc.).

The 14th Amendment changed that, but only to a degree.

Then again, if we have a living constitution, we can simply update it to either position here.

Christopher in MA said...

"Often they were on the wrong side during the cold war."

Boy, does that bring back memories, Chuck. For the longest time, whenever some (very) leftist acquaintances of mine used to blast "the bishops" for sticking their noses in public policy - which, in their case, meant anything less than full-throated cheerleaing for abortion - I'd shake my head and say, "yeah, those busybody priests. Remember them calling for a nuclear freeze when Reagan was president? Who told them they had any right to open their stupid mouths? They should just stick to begging for money and leave politics to us."

Sadly, the sarcasm usually went right over their heads. But good times, though. Good times.

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

I always have a warm memory of Pope John Paul II laying into that priest who met him on the tarmac in Nicaragua, Sandanista Minister of Culture, Ernesto Cardenal.

That was a man that lived under two oppresive regimes, and worked to free the world.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Yes, I expect that next year we will either choose to enforce our borders with state power (apparently the feds don't want to) or we will continue down a path leading to a complete loss of sovereignty for failing to do so.

A country without borders is no longer a country.

Alex said...

A country without borders is no longer a country.

Which is exactly how the left views the world. Remember "Imagine", the line "imagine no countries"? You think Lennon didn't really mean it?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Which is exactly how the left views the world."

In as far as their desire to spread fairness and diversity. They just choose to block out the misery and the gulags.

Alex said...

In as far as their desire to spread fairness and diversity. They just choose to block out the misery and the gulags.

No lefty ever wanted the gulag.

andinista said...

Alex sez no lefty ever wanted d gulag

D time comes when ~20% refus to submit to d State, dey wan deyr Liberty n will fight 4 it, or go Galt
The lefty project cant tolerat dat Dey resign demselves 2 "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" And off 2 d camps go d refuznikk
A choizz twixt gulag, or free-range refuznikk giving d lie to the lefty project, d leftyy will nevr giv up deyr dreem, and fight ginst d gulag Cuz d lefty know dat if ur ginst the camps, ur in dem.

Dere is no lefty magic formula for socialism It alwazz ends in tears n human abbatoirs

Scott M said...

It alwazz ends in tears n human abbatoirs

"No, no, it's-- it's just that we wanted a block of flats and not an abattoir."

Rialby said...

I just heard them repeat the canard on NPR - "this case will help to decide who has the right to make immigration law - the federal government or the state government". BZZZZZZ, wrong. It's about whether a state law can ENFORCE EXISTING LAW.

If the state cannot enforce federal law on immigration, why can the state enforce federal law on anything?

Scott M said...

You know, the more I think about the Monty Python sketch I referenced above, one really could consider the entire text as a wry criticism of socialism.

The Architect Sketch

Not that the Pythons were critics of socialism, persay, at least not in their primes. If you listen to them much later in life, though, you can tell they've adjusted their opinions considerably.

Best line from a late-date Python interview:

Interviewer: Describe Graham Chapman in one word.

John Cleese: Dead.

Kirby Olson said...

Unlike the financial committee of six, at least SCOTUS usually has a decision of some kind at the end, even if it's on purely ideological ground.

I hope the decision is clearly against Obama's finger wagging and stalling and do-nothingism.

I can understand someone at the level of Thoreau refusing to obey a law, but at the level of the president, it's just amazingly weird. thoreau was an anarchist! Can the president be an anarchist?

Job said...

Chuck66: Don't confuse the interpretations of individual bishops for Catholic teachings.

You are certainly not the only one to do this, so I am not coming down on you.

Actual Catholic teachings on issues like immigration, birth control and the death penalty are much more reserved and open to disagreements about circumstances than a lot of bishops would have you believe.

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

Thoreau understood that he was supposed to go to jail when he refused to follow the law. (Even if he was soon bailed out). I'm not sure everyone who talks about civil disobedience nowadays sees it that way.