Scalia plays politician; Romney plays possum
In another sign of just how screwy things have gotten, Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee for president, steadfastly refuses to get involved in the political debate about immigration. He refuses to offer his own ideas about a national immigration strategy*, and he won’t voice an opinion on President Obama’s controversial decision not to deport illegal aliens who were brought here as young children.
But worry not: A supposedly nonpolitical Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, is eager to jump into the political fray where Romney is too meek to tread. In his radical dissent to today’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law, Scalia argues that Arizona and the other 49 states have the right to exercise “what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”
“Even in its international relations, the federal government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent states, who have their own sovereign powers,” Scalia writes.
Just as remarkably, Scalia used his dissent to lambaste Obama’s decision regarding children of illegal immigrants, slyly referring to “the Executive’s unwise targeting” of available resources to combat illegal immigration.
“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 non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement,” Scalia complained.
Scalia plays politician; Romney plays possum.
———-
*Note: Here’s the official Romney response to today’s ruling:
“Today’s decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this president. I believe that each state has the duty — and the right — to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But four years later, we are still waiting.”
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
726 comments Add your comment
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
8:00 am
“Ok, my take? The mom should be jailed for saying “have went.””
up against the wall.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
8:01 am
Do I have a right to a car and European vacation?
No. You do have a right to make silly hypotheticals in support of a weak position.
Real Scootter
June 26th, 2012
8:01 am
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
7:51 am
Do we really have the right to punch someone Pea? I’m thinking not.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
8:01 am
“Do I have a right to a car and European vacation?”
If that is what you truly want and not just a silly strawman….ORGANIZE.
I wouldn’t support it, but I’d defend your right to fight for it.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
8:02 am
“Do I have a right to a car and European vacation?”
Jm – don’t be a dick.
unless you honestly think that a European vacation = chemotherapy that could save your life.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:02 am
If Obama runs on his record he loses
Only if he runs on the record the right has made up for him. If he runs on what he ACTUALLY, did, however, I am pretty sure he wins.
Thomas
June 26th, 2012
8:02 am
Agreed ME- what about patronizing, belittling, and judging- I assume from prior posts these sins are allowed?
Bud Wiser
June 26th, 2012
8:03 am
What’s the matter, Bookman?
Got no response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Arizona’s immigration laws, essentially 3 out of 4 struck down?
Or are you waiting patiently by the email box for the stooge response of the day, being written elsewhere for you (known as ‘marching orders)?
And how about the response of the soon-to-be gone Obama administration?
It goes something like this: (paraphrase)
” Hey Arizona, sorry about having to kick you pretty hard on this, but we’re the govt and we’re here to help. Anyway, here’s our plan – we are discontinuing federal operations there on border control and enforcement … you want to be on your own, then have at it. We’re not having any more of our agents killed by guns we gave the cartels, just yours.
“Oh, and that so-called let me see your papers part of your law that SCOTUS said was okay? Well, its not okay with us. In fact, we have now set up a phone hotline for everyone to call if they even think that their civil rights have been violated by your law enforcement folks checking those ‘papers, so LOOK OUT!! We’d call it a bounty pool for how many cops we can nail, but after seeing how the NFL went after the Saints for playing the game, we don’t want to sully our fine reputation with false innuendo and outright lies. We’re perfectly capable of handling that ourselves, thank you. After all, we have Eric Holder, not Roger Goodell.
Enjoy trying to explain away another disgraceful abrogation of federal responsibility, Jay.
Better yet, wait on those talking points being written for you.
Sit … speak… good boy.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:03 am
So you lib geniuses, do you think deficit spending like Europe is the way to prosperity??
Actually Europe has been pretty deep into austerity, way more than we did, and they still didn’t balance their budget, they are the ones who had runaway inflation (not us) and their unemployment rate is way higher – all as a result of doing more of what the Republicans want to do to THIS country. No thanks, I say.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
8:03 am
“Do we really have the right to punch someone Pea? I’m thinking not.”
If you’re bullying me, damn right I do have the right to defend myself.
Real Scootter
June 26th, 2012
8:04 am
as penance for piling on, I’ll post this…
Thanks DB!!
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
8:04 am
Jm – don’t be a dick.
Doesn’t dickitude constitute an “other defining characteristic?”
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:05 am
Headline: “A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights” by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.”
Yeah… that’ll surely get people to vote for Romney, who would never ever do such a thing himself….
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
8:05 am
oooh… SCROTUS SHEETZ.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:06 am
HOT AIR
June 26th, 2012
12:54 am
Obama held up his hand and placed his other hand on the Bible and swore under oath to uphold the existing laws of our country – HE LIED.
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
12:57 am
Did Obama lie under oath to uphold the laws of our land? He took his oath of office so that would be a big YES. He’s our liar in chief.
——————-
Anyone notice something about this?
If you can’t think for yourself, that’s fine I suppose. It’s a free country after all. But when a child can deliver your message, it’s not because he’s a genius. It’s because intellectually, you’re a child.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
8:09 am
“Got no response to yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling on Arizona’s immigration laws, essentially 3 out of 4 struck down?”
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/25/supremes-overturn-much-of-arizona-immigration-law/
Idiot
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:09 am
One thing I never asked but wonder if anyone has any thoughts – why is Scalia basically acting like a talk radio host any time he gets to speak? Is he looking for another thing to do once he quits the Supreme Court?
Real Scootter
June 26th, 2012
8:10 am
If you’re bullying me, damn right I do have the right to defend myself
I’m not so sure about that Peadawg.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
8:12 am
Bud Wiser
Time for walkies!
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
8:24 am
Usinuk
So I have the right to try to live forever on the taxpayer dime, in your view? Ok….
Mary Elizabeth
June 26th, 2012
8:24 am
Thomas, 8:02 am
“Agreed ME- what about patronizing, belittling, and judging- I assume from prior posts these sins are allowed?”
==================================================
Obviously, you have a personal problem with my remarks, Thomas. I have said to you, previously, that I have no ill will toward you. My remarks at 7:49 am regarding verbal abuse through insulting were not directed at you, personally. Your remarks, above, were directed at me personally. There is a difference.
I have pointed out to you, before, that when you lay charges at my remarks that you should be caring enough to state the specific remarks that I have made which you perceive to be “patronizing, belittling, or judging.” For instance, one could say that these remarks of mine, posted at 7:49 am, are “patronizing, belittling, or judging” yet those remarks of mine very much needed to be stated by someone on this blog as strongly as I have stated them:
———————————————————————————————–
“Insulting is verbal abuse that should not be tolerated, even on this blog. It is a moral issue. Whether it is legal is another thing.
We must elevate consciousness so that others see that insulting, whether to gays or to others, is verbal abuse that should not be condoned either in families, in schools, or in any public arena, including on this blog. Insulting others is not “cool” and it is not indicative of “manly” strength. It is adolescent, mean-spirited, and insulting demeans not only the one who insults but also those who tolerate it.”
———————————————————————————
You, obviously, have a problem with me, or with my remarks, but I consider that to be something you need to work through, yourself. In the meantime, next time you insult me by stating my words are “negative” for whatever reason you perceive, please be ethical enough as to, at least, restate my words to which you refer so that others can judge for themselves the calibre of my remarks, without simply spewing generalized insults at me.
In that I must watch my blood pressure, I will not be addressing you again. However, I wish you well, Thomas, and hope that you are able to resolve your unresolved anger and hostilities.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
8:26 am
Normal,
Isakson is correct The Student Non-Discrimination Act could potentially infringe on free speech. If for an example a student brought up in a Christian environment comments that homosexual acts are sinful, that could be interpreted as harassing behavior. Additionally passing such legislation deems homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation where many view it as a perversion. The schools should enforce a non-bullying policy that addresses all forms of bullying. Passing legislation intended to protect one small group of students is a slippery slope.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
8:37 am
If for an example a student brought up in a Christian environment comments that homosexual acts are sinful, that could be interpreted as harassing behavior
Well, it IS harassing behavior. As is any proselytizing at all. And don’t argue slippery slope with a bunch of people who won’t let kids curse in school.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
9:15 am
Towncrier — “Yes, perhaps because elected officials on both sides of the isle never meant to take the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 seriously (and obviously). I suppose that will all change when an illegal immigrant they don’t deport turns out to be a terrorist who sets off a nuclear dirty bomb. I guess there will be no end to the hearings then…”
I see. So we don’t want the evidence to be a mushroom cloud, is that it?
Come now. You’re a much smarter person than to go in for all that sort of fear-based fooferaw. There are plenty of good reasons to develop a robust, coherent and sensible set of immigration policies and procedures, but dragging terrorism and dirty bombs into your argument unnecessarily muddies the waters IMO.
Should Judges Be Politicians? « TedsPolitics.Com
June 28th, 2012
1:42 am
[...] Scalia plays politician; Romney plays possum (blogs.ajc.com) [...]
Borowitz Report – Romney Blasts Supreme Court, Calling Healthcare Act ‘Worst Idea I Ever Had’ « Ye Olde Soapbox
June 28th, 2012
4:03 pm
[...] Scalia plays politician; Romney plays possum (blogs.ajc.com) [...]