Supreme Court restricts impact of Ga. immigration law

NOTE: This post contains some material previously published on this blog. It is posted here as the electronic version of today’s AJC column.

Publicly, Gov. Nathan Deal embraced Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on illegal immigration, claiming that “it appears the court has upheld the major thrust of our state’s statute: That states have the right to assist in enforcing federal immigration law.”

However, there’s a noticeable undertone of caution in Deal’s statement, and in similar statements by Attorney General Sam Olens. Both men seem to realize that when read in its entirety, the court’s 5-3 opinion to overturn much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law also spells trouble for Georgia’s law.

As Deal notes, the court did recognize that “states have the right to assist” in enforcing federal immigration law. However, the key word in that phrase is “assist.” The five-justice majority was quite clear that the federal government has total authority over immigration law, and that states can assist only to the degree that the federal government allows that assistance.

The court based its ruling in part on the federal government’s clear, longstanding authority on matters of foreign policy.

“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 sepa­rate states,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

The court also ruled that federal officials have the exclusive discretion to decide how and even whether to deport those who are here illegally. Contrary to the philosophy behind the Arizona law and Georgia’s HB 87, a policy of “toss-em-all-out” is not required by federal law and cannot be dictated by state legislatures.

“Unauthorized work­ers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who com­mit a serious crime,” Kennedy wrote. “The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community or a record of distinguished military service.”

(Among other things, that language suggests that President Obama acted within his constitutional authority when he announced that his administration would not deport illegal immigrants who had been brought here as children and raised and educated as American.)

The court did uphold, at least temporarily, one provision of the Arizona law that is also echoed in Georgia law. In both states, local and state law enforcement are empowered to run immigration checks on anybody whom they arrest or detain, even for minor traffic offenses.

In theory, the justices noted, that authority can be constitutional. But if people end up being detained for long periods of time for no reason other than to let state authorities conduct an immigration check, the law will be reviewed and thrown out.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the case was the broad, even radical dissent filed by Justice Antonin Scalia. He began by arguing that states are sovereign entities, then complained that the majority opinion “deprives states of 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.” In effect, Scalia was advancing the novel notion that states have an inherent right to control who crosses their borders.

“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 wrote.

Just as remarkably, Scalia used his dissent to launch a political attack on Obama’s recent decision not to deport an estimated 1.4 million illegal immigrants who were brought here as children. Referring slyly to “the executive’s unwise targeting” of resources to combat illegal immigration, Scalia wrote:

“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.”

At a time when the court is already under suspicion of indulging in partisan politics. Scalia plays a dangerous and irresponsible game with judicial credibility.

– Jay Bookman

359 comments Add your comment

the cat

June 26th, 2012
8:11 am

Scalia has no credibility, period.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:12 am

“The court did uphold, at least temporarily, one provision of the Arizona law that is also echoed in Georgia law. In both states, local and state law enforcement are empowered to run immigration checks on anybody whom they arrest or detain, even for minor traffic offenses.”

As long as they work WITH the feds on this, I don’t have a problem with this provision – which is why the SCOTUS said they would watch its implementation very closely.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:13 am

having said that – sadly, I do think it’s going to lead to a rash of “driving while brown” arrests

carlosgvv

June 26th, 2012
8:14 am

Jay, EXACTLY what did Scalia say in his dissent that strikes you as being unconstitutional?

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:15 am

Referring slyly

Slyly? Is that really the word you want for Scalia’s ham-handed dicktardery?

I don’t have a problem with this provision – which is why the SCOTUS said they would watch its implementation very closely.

I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as “I don’t have a problem,” but effectively, that part of the law, that Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Ara##hole claim has been vindicated, is effectively on probation now, anyway.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
8:15 am

Scalia…the new code word for “bought and paid for”…

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:17 am

“Scalia…the new code word for “bought and paid for”…”

although I’m sure Thomas will give him a run for his $$$ when the healthcare ruling comes out on Tuesday …

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
8:19 am

Scalia in no more partisan than Ginsberg…Jay’s just being “Italianist”…the only thing Scalia is guilty of is “judging while being of Italian descent”.

TaxPayer

June 26th, 2012
8:19 am

According to Scalia’s perverted logic, Georgia should have the right to deny New Yorkers passage through the state to Florida and vice versa. Unless they pay a toll. Just imagine the increase in passport business if you plan on traveling between states.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
8:22 am

And on the eighth post, ol’ Ty brings in the first unwarranted and unnecessary racial card.

I guess it’s true with “conservatives”…when you have nothing to add, say anything…

Adam

June 26th, 2012
8:22 am

carlosgvv: He didn’t say anything unconstitutional. He is totally within his rights to sit there and talk about any stupid thing he wants. It doesn’t really lend to his credibility, but tough! He’s already there and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Or, in Scalia’s attitude translated to words: “Nanny nanny BOO BOO!”

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
8:24 am

“And on the eighth post, ol’ Ty brings in the first unwarranted and unnecessary racial card.”

check that, Normal…race was brought up by your “team” at 8:13…you’re welcome.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 26th, 2012
8:25 am

Justices need to be retired at age 75.

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:25 am

Jay’s just being “Italianist”…

“Conservative humor is what closes on Saturday night.”

–George S. Kaufman

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

June 26th, 2012
8:25 am

“judging while being of Italian descent”.

He’s a Pastafarian?

Tommy Maddox

June 26th, 2012
8:26 am

Yep – the legislature will probably have to whittle down the Georgia law in the next session.

Scalia however is a brilliant jurist and quite accurate in his assessment of the issue of State’s sovereignty.

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:26 am

Hey, does the Blog Bluenose censor “Va fangool?”

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
8:27 am

good one, Granny.

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:27 am

Where’s the water war scotus column? :)

Probably more important to most Georgians.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:27 am

“the only thing Scalia is guilty of is “judging while being of Italian descent”.”

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight … the decision was tinged with his Italianness … which is why I guess it just totally went right by my Italianness

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:28 am

Guess not. (funnily, it does censor the correct spelling, although I’ve never actually heard it *pronounced* that way by actual Americans of Sicilians descent.)

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:29 am

“Scalia however is a brilliant jurist”

I’d laugh, but the reality is too tragic

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:29 am

He’s a Pastafarian?

mmm…Hash Rigatoni.

carlosgvv

June 26th, 2012
8:29 am

Adam – 8:22

All nine of them are “already there” and, in any decision, a minimun of five have powers all out of porportion to their numbers.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:30 am

“check that, Normal…race was brought up by your “team” at 8:13…you’re welcome.”

aw, diddums … does it affect your delicate sensibilities if someone brings up the concept that maybe … juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust maybe … the police may pull someone over for a “faulty tailight” because they happen to look furrin’???

JohnnyReb

June 26th, 2012
8:30 am

“At a time when the court is already under suspicion of indulging in partisan politics. Scalia plays a dangerous and irresponsible game with judicial credibility.”

No Jay. That’s your take because you are a Statist.

What should be more alarming to you is how the Obama administration is behaving like a bunch of thugs or a vindictive woman. Their actions to pull Arizona police authority to assist ICE and setting up a hot line to Justice for reporting suspected illegal retention in enforcing the part of the law SCOTUS let stand is one of the most obvious retributions I can remember in politics.

You Moonbats continue to support and be proud of Obama who out of his mouth comes tones of needing to work together while every action he takes divides us. He can’t go soon enough.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:31 am

“Where’s the water war scotus column?” – We beat Auburn and Florida last year…we get all the damn water. :)

BTW, I really don’t get all the backlash against what Scalia said. If you don’t agree with it, that’s fine and dandy. But what’s the w/ all the unconstitutional talk and whatnot? He was just stating his opinion.

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
8:31 am

UsinUk,
your the “Clarence Thomas” of “Italianness”…in other words, you’re just an “Uncle Sal”.

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:32 am

you are a Statist

and you’ve just self-identified as part of the nutter fringe by using a ridiculous term like that.

Tommy Maddox

June 26th, 2012
8:32 am

USinUK – read opinions often?

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:33 am

“And on the eighth post, ol’ Ty brings in the first unwarranted and unnecessary racial card.”

USinUK actually brought up in the 3rd post. Funny you overlooked it.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:33 am

“your the “Clarence Thomas” of “Italianness”…in other words, you’re just an “Uncle Sal”.”

first of all, it’s you’RE, not your

secondly, please point out the glaring “Italian” aspect of Scalia’s ruling that is at the root of Jay’s supposed anti-Italian opinion

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:33 am

Can the next president decide it is ok to stop prosecuting all child molesters, drug dealers, all business people, because they pose less of threat than, say, murderers?

Apparently they can legally. Wonder how that would strike most Americans.

(I’m not really commenting on AZ law, more obama’s use of discretionary law enforcement)

Hopefully the next president will give a blanket waiver to all speeders. Some of my friends would really appreciate that.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:34 am

Tommy – can you be more specific?

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:34 am

But what’s the w/ all the unconstitutional talk and whatnot?

That’s just carlos’ fevered imaginings. Carlos is not exactly the model of emotional stability on this topic.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
8:34 am

Ty,
What I said was unnecessary and unwarranted. USinUK’s post was warranted because it is most likely to be true.

JohnnyReb

June 26th, 2012
8:34 am

BTW Jay, your readers may not recognize it, but bad mouthing the members of SCTOUS is right in line with the Obama gangs plan to belittle the court as activists, etc. when they rule against Obamacare. The pity party started Sunday on the talk shows. I can’t recall a recent incident of a partisan so openly prostituting himself as did Bill Richardson.

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
8:35 am

“first of all, it’s you’RE, not your”

I apologize for the mistake…now, please lighten up, I was only joking with you.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:35 am

“Can the next president decide it is ok to stop prosecuting all child molesters, drug dealers, all business people, because they pose less of threat than, say, murderers?”

:roll:

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:36 am

Scalia plays politician. Jay displays faux one-sided outrage.

Alabama the Heart of Dixie

June 26th, 2012
8:37 am

MONTGOMERY, Alabama — The Southern Poverty Law Center re-launched a hotline for people to report problems they have experienced as a result of Alabama’s immigration law. Call the hotline at 800-982-1620 either to report problems or get information about changes lawmakers made to the law in the recent legislative session.

JohnnyReb

June 26th, 2012
8:38 am

stands – you should look up the word Statist before knee jerking. It is a legitimate noun that is neither slang nor slander.

TaxPayer

June 26th, 2012
8:38 am

Statist! Isn’t that one of those terms used by anarchists.

Adam

June 26th, 2012
8:39 am

All nine of them are “already there” and, in any decision, a minimun of five have powers all out of porportion to their numbers.

Rubbing everyone’s face in it “haha I’m untouchable!” should be an impeachable offense.

Ok, maybe not, but it does show there is absolutely zero accountability even if the judge is being blatantly partisan, not even trying to keep up the appearance of being impartial.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:40 am

ty – “I apologize for the mistake…now, please lighten up, I was only joking with you.”

dude – sorry – my snarkometer must be broken ;-)

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:40 am

I hope the next president decides to stop prosecuting all drug users.

Who needs laws? The president can just decide.

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

June 26th, 2012
8:40 am

“Can the next president decide it is ok to stop prosecuting all child molesters, drug dealers, all business people, because they pose less of threat than, say, murderers?”

Yep.

Just like this one decided not to prosecute war criminals.

Excrement occurs.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:42 am

“Statist! Isn’t that one of those terms used by anarchists.”

I prefer Staticist … I like to rub balloons on people’s heads and make their hair stand on end … Mwahahahaha

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:42 am

“all nine of them”

Sfd claims there are 11 :)

I wonder how many obamacare columns jay has written in preparation…. :)

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:43 am

“Who needs laws? The president can just decide.”

so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.

or are you just selective in your poutrage?

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:45 am

“Rubbing everyone’s face in it “haha I’m untouchable!” should be an impeachable offense.”

You may want to get that fainting couch you kept talking about yesterday.

“Ok, maybe not, but it does show there is absolutely zero accountability even if the judge is being blatantly partisan, not even trying to keep up the appearance of being impartial.”

:lol:

Look It Up!

June 26th, 2012
8:45 am

stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.
statist adj. & n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

statist [ˈsteɪtɪst]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an advocate of statism
2. (Mathematics & Measurements / Statistics) a less common name for a statistician
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) Archaic a politician or statesman
adj
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) of, characteristic of, advocating, or relating to statism
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

Wow that describes Jay and most on here oh so well!

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:46 am

“Just like this one decided not to prosecute war criminals”

Booooo

JamVet

June 26th, 2012
8:47 am

Scalia still has a ways to go to catch up to the most abysmal US Supreme Court Justice in history – Lewis Powell – but he sure is working hard on getting there.

Scalia is not a people, my friend.

He is a conservabot working for the corporate machine and against we the people…

To hell with democracy, long live the corporatocracy…

TaxPayer

June 26th, 2012
8:47 am

prefer Staticist … I like to rub balloons on people’s heads and make their hair stand on end … Mwahahahaha

I could see getting a charge out of that.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:47 am

Jamvet – word.

Adam

June 26th, 2012
8:48 am

Seriously everyone getting in a tizzy about law enforcement and what the executive branch can and cannot do needs to do some studying. Because you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re just repeating talking points.

For reference:
1) What Obama did was NOT an executive order
2) What Obama did was perfectly legal and well within the bounds of his authority
3) What Obama did was reiterate a policy already being pursued by ICE. (Honestly I’d have more respect for your arguments if you were trying to make the case that he took credit for, but did not create, said policy)

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:49 am

““Who needs laws? The president can just decide.”

so, I suppose it was okay when W decided to set aside the law that enabled funding of stem cell research.

or are you just selective in your poutrage?”

Nope not ok. Have you not figured out that I’m not on one side yet, after all this time? Some people are so dense.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:49 am

“Have you not figured out that I’m not on one side yet, after all this time? ”

:lol:

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight … you’re so “independent”

Adam

June 26th, 2012
8:50 am

Peadawg: You may want to get that fainting couch you kept talking about yesterday

I don’t remember making that reference :o

Anyway I was being hyperbolic on purpose there :)

philosopher

June 26th, 2012
8:50 am

” He just stated his opinion.” He’s supposed to state his LEGAL opinion (you know, his honest, educated interpretation of the constitution)…..not his personal/political opinion.

scrappy

June 26th, 2012
8:50 am

The problem with what Scalia wrote is 1) while states do have individual rights, they are part of the union, & it is the union which has international sovereign – not states 2) He is supposed to write an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law. If he disagrees, fine. But, the opinion is not supposed to be politically motiviated & not supposed to be nothing to do with the case before them.

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:50 am

J-Reb, your etymology lesson aside, its casual usage is a pretty reliable indicator of one’s susceptibility to bug-f### insane political theories.

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:51 am

If we’re no longer a nation of laws, but only a nation of “men”, why bother writing laws anymore?

Let’s just accept a dictator as leader….

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:52 am

scrappy – “But, the opinion is not supposed to be politically motiviated & not supposed to be nothing to do with the case before them.”

dude – I gave up that ghost in 2000

Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette

June 26th, 2012
8:54 am

why bother writing laws anymore….

yep, why bother to mandate peoples behavior.

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:55 am

Interestingly, depending on the outcome, the 11th circuit in ATL may play a significant role in the obamacare ruling

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:55 am

“Have you not figured out that I’m not on one side yet”

You’re as one sided as our other so-called “independent” on this blog – getalife.

joe

June 26th, 2012
8:55 am

Yet the provision for the police to ask “show your papers” was upheld 8-0 by the Sup Court. So, that’s the starting point police in GA and other states need to get a grip on illegals already here. Now only if our idiot POTUS would get a clue and realize we have LAWS that need to be followed instead of trying to be a dictator like we are some bassackwards country in the middle east…

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
8:56 am

I don’t know about a dictator, but we do do have a GOP dick-tater running for President…

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
8:56 am

I gave up that ghost in 2000

the day the music died?

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:56 am

“yep, why bother to mandate peoples behavior.”

well … unless they’re women … then evidently our VAGINAS require that we’re closely supervised

TaxPayer

June 26th, 2012
8:56 am

Jm back to trying to convince folks that he’s a fence straddler. Uh Huh.

kayaker 71

June 26th, 2012
8:56 am

We wouldn’t be in this mess if our elected leaders had enforced the law when this first began in earnest. Reagan started this whole cluster**** by admitting about 3M illegals and it has gone from bad to worse ever since. No one has had the balls to step up to the plate and uphold our standing laws regarding immigration. The laws are good laws and have worked for quite a long time to ensure that those who entered our country were free of an untainted past, had something to offer and would support themselves. It wasn’t perfect but so much better than what is going on now. Pandering to a special interest group for votes is the ultimate put down for our country. Every president since Reagan has done this and it makes you sick to see it….. as if votes are more important than our laws and protecting our citizens. We have our elected officials of both parties to thank for this. I just hope we survive it.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:57 am

dB – :lol: – I’ve never had a Chevy and I don’t particularly like whiskey OR rye … but otherwise, yes.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
8:59 am

“Anyway I was being hyperbolic on purpose there”

Oh of course you were. :roll:

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 26th, 2012
8:59 am

What are the odds the scotus website crashes Thursday?

massachusetts refugee

June 26th, 2012
8:59 am

if i get stopped for speeding later today in glendale or peoria, or on i-10, can i sue if they don’t check my immigration status? afterall, i may be here illlegally from ireland.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
8:59 am

ohmystars … someone criticizing St. Ronnie of the Fields???

I think I may faint from the shock

USinUK

June 26th, 2012
9:03 am

USinUK

Had related earlier, but you with your go home at noon or one schedule weren’t here….

but – was on the Dallas ring road, I635, just merged from the left off the HOV lane onto the four lanes eastbound. Heavy traffic, all three lanes to my left crowded and moving together at about 65 as Dallas traffic does. Up ahead cop put his lights on, went way to the right and got behind this old sedan. My wife looked and said ‘what’s that cop doing? Everyone’s moving together, no room to pass or change lanes, even.” As we passed the driver had pulled over to the right and brought his arms up in that “oh cr@p, not again” gesture. Young guy.

Care to guess his color?

Wasn’t white.

And in anticipation of the rebuttals: cop wasn’t in a position to run his plate before the stop, all traffic was moving together, this guy was way over to the right side. Daytime, so no burned out lights. But I’m sure the cop had a reason. Just like the situation in which one of our border cities’ mayor, Italian decent but as he put it “I look like my Hispanic constituents” got pulled over in his pickup truck. Cop asked for his license and insurance. Mayor said ‘why’d you pull me over?” Cop said “your right tire skimmed the white line.”

They want to target you, they’ll come up with something.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 26th, 2012
9:05 am

another made it a crime for undocumented migrants to try to get a job in Arizona

and AZ still has an unemployment rate of 8%. mwuahahahahahaha

Joseph

June 26th, 2012
9:06 am

I take it you don’t like Scalia Jay? Well I don’t like any of the libs on the court because they obviously base their rulings on their personnel ideology.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
9:07 am

9:03 – that’s exactly what I’m saying – but, evidently that makes us racists because we DARE to point out that cops have a history of JUST that kind of behavior …

(and, yeah … that’s me … checking out at noon / 1:00 … slacker that I am ;-) )

John Birch

June 26th, 2012
9:08 am

About 6 of the 9 vote along party lines at least 90% of the time. I’m looking forward to the PPACA ruling, Hope Ginsburg will write a minority opinion explaining how the government has the constiutional right to force citizens to buy something they neither need nor want.

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
9:08 am

yeah, I’m pulled over by jealous cops all the time simply for my handsomeness…things are tough all over.

Recon 0311 2533

June 26th, 2012
9:08 am

Interesting how many on here are stuck on stupid about the Supreme Courts ruling. What happens if Obama loses and Romney orders Homeland Security and the DoJ to enforce existing immigration laws. The Supremes only ruled that the Federal government trumps the states on immigration law. It didn’t strike down existing immigration law, so a new administration could choose to enforce those laws as Obama has chosen not to. Maybe the states should sue the federal government for its failure to enforce our laws against illegal immigration. 65% of the population supports the Arizona law and believe in enforcement against illegal immigration.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
9:08 am

“because they obviously base their rulings on their personnel ideology”

obviously.

all of them.

all the time.

effing hippy activists

:roll:

td

June 26th, 2012
9:12 am

Jay,

Your headline states that yesterdays SCOTUS ruling will impact HB 87 but then in the article there is no specifics. Can you please explain to us what provisions do you think it will effect?

Mighty Righty

June 26th, 2012
9:12 am

As usual Jay slants everything to support his own political party. Jay leaves out the part where the main theme of the Arizona law was upheld by the supreme court 8 to 0. That is eight to nothing the supreme court upheld the right of Arizona to “ask for proof of citizenship” during a routine stop for violating other laws. The Obama administration again has come down on the side of illegal foreign invaders against the citizens of the United States. Obama has made it very very clear he favors open borders and will not enforce any law that will restrict the invasion of our country by foreigners. We have elected an administration that represents foreign interests against our own citizens. He defends imagined rights of foreigners over the rights of our own citizens.

kayaker 71

June 26th, 2012
9:12 am

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it the Right of the People to alter it or abolish it, and to institute New Government……. it is their Right, it is their Duty to throw off such Government and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

Thomas Jefferson
The Declaration of Independence

Think it’s time?

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
9:12 am

Well,
That makes it official…Joseph doesn’t like Liberals…

Well liberals don’t like him either :lol:

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
9:12 am

“I’m pulled over by jealous cops all the time simply for my handsomeness”

you, too!!!???

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
9:13 am

“Think it’s time?”

yes, I think it’s totally time to throw off ANY government that restricts fellow legislators rights to speak and perform their duties just because they say the word VAGINA

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
9:15 am

UsinUk,
people just don’t understand our plight, do they?…”let our people go”.

Adam

June 26th, 2012
9:15 am

The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Oh, well I guess that makes me a statist then. In certain areas. It also makes Germany statist. But whatever it does in definition, as hard as you try, “statist” is only a slur to a libertarian. And here’s libertarian:

http://leftycartoons.com/the-24-types-of-libertarian/

JamVet

June 26th, 2012
9:15 am

The Obama administration again has come down on the side of American businessmen who make enormous profits from illegally using the foreign invaders against the working class citizens of the United States.

Fixed your selective rant…

godless heathen

June 26th, 2012
9:16 am

Georgia should have the right to deny New Yorkers passage through the state to Florida [or charge them a toll]

Hell yes. At least make them buy a bag of peanuts, whether or not they need or want them.

Adam

June 26th, 2012
9:17 am

USinUK: yes, I think it’s totally time to throw off ANY government that restricts fellow legislators rights to speak and perform their duties just because they say the word VAGINA

It’s not the word so much as they felt insulted by her. The word was their excuse to shut her up, which is downright effed up.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
9:17 am

ty – I’m soooooo feeling your pain!! we shall overcome.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
9:17 am

godless heathen

June 26th, 2012
9:16 am

Any restrictions if they are allergic?