Court upholds Atlanta’s rights to Lake Lanier’s water, overturns part of AZ immigration law; Obamacare on hold
UPDATE at 1:55 p.m.: Here’s my longer take on the Arizona ruling.
UPDATE at 11 a.m.: A quick clarification: I erred in writing that the court said the opinion will come out Thursday. What it said is Thursday will be the last day for issuing opinions this term; there is a slight possibility it will hold the case over until the next term.
ORIGINAL POST:
The U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare today and said the opinion will come out Thursday. In very big local news, however, the justices declined to hear an appeal by Alabama and Florida of the 11th Circuit’s ruling in the long-running “water wars,” meaning metro Atlanta can still take drinking water from Lake Lanier. And it overruled substantial portions of Arizona’s highly controversial immigration law — while leaving intact the most scrutinized part, which allows local law enforcement to check the immigration status of people who have been arrested.
More analysis coming as I make it through the immigration ruling.
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
92 comments Add your comment
JDW
June 25th, 2012
12:27 pm
@…”it appears you did not listen too well to the oral arguments and responses ”
And it appears you don’t realize that picking Court outcomes on oral arguments is a fools game. I don’t know which way they will go but given this ruling I have some hope that sanity has returned.
md
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
“I’m sure you’re tormented by businesses with wheelchair ramps a half-inch too short”
As if that is the equivalent to a child on the other side of the planet possibly being denied entry to a better life………….and for the record, building inspectors I know wouldn’t pass that 1/2 inch short ramp either………..
JDW
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
@md…”And I’ll ask again, why is it “right” to charge visa holders out of state rates while not doing the same for those that came in illegally??”
Not saying it’s right or wrong. Simply pointing out there is likely no constitutional way to check the immigration status of someone that has an in state address and has committed no crime.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
12:30 pm
JDW, you just have no idea what “securing the borders and preserving the rule of law” actually means.
You can’t get there if you cannot first determine the perp’s legal status. Therefore, states can, through this ruling, do so and make a determination as to whether they shuffle them off to the Feds for processing, or in the case of this administration, ignoring the actual rule of law.
md
June 25th, 2012
12:32 pm
Come on Aqua…..just admit that you prescribe to the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality and could care less about those that the others jumped in front of……….
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
12:36 pm
I’m beginning to wonder why we have “laws” at all. If the policemen aka law officers of our country cannot enforce the laws of our country, then who will.?
The government says it cannot deport all illegal aliens. Why can’t states deport them? Because they can’t enforce Federal laws.! But the people are still “ILLEGAL”! (Definition of illegal: not legal, unauthorized, with syn=.unlawful ,illegitimate, illicit, unlicensed.)
This is getting too complicated. We have people with no ties to this country other than making a living here and nobody can enforce the law because they must know if it is a state, county, or Federal?
How can police around this country know when to enforce the law when you have to know which law to enforce? Perhaps we should fly all our “regular” law breakers and leave them in Mexico. A swap out!
I also think we have too many lawyers in Washington who cannot see the big picture for the smoke and dust they throw up. I dont think the term “illegal” is even used in law schools any more. Maybe “dislocated’ but not illegal. It is incorrect to label incorrect as “incorrect” when it is incorrect!
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
12:36 pm
.just admit that you prescribe to the “out of sight, out of mind” mentality and could care less about those that the others jumped in front of……….
Actually I’m for open borders in most cases. And your attempt to be Mr. Bleeding Heart Liberal For the Starving Children is the best laugh I’ve had in a long, long time. Please continue, I usually have to pay for this level of comedy.
Middle of the Road
June 25th, 2012
12:39 pm
I think the point here is fairly obvious. The Federal government has, and let’s be generous here, not enforced immigration laws and secured our borders as zealously as some of us may have liked. So Arizona felt like they had to take matters in their own hands and passed some imposing and harsh laws. SCOTUS simply and correctly pointed out that for the most part it’s wrong to create unconstitutional laws just because of such circumstances. Arizona’s next step is to knock very loudly on the Federal governments doors about the situation.
md
June 25th, 2012
12:44 pm
“And your attempt to be Mr. Bleeding Heart Liberal For the Starving Children is the best laugh I’ve had in a long, long time. Please continue, I usually have to pay for this level of comedy.”
Too funny……most of the people I know have no problem with legal immigration…..but line jumping is NOT the way for any society to function……..and condoning line jumping is even worse……..
I have no problem with lawful immigration……..none, zip, zelch………..
JDW
June 25th, 2012
12:56 pm
@Tiberius…”JDW, you just have no idea what “securing the borders and preserving the rule of law” actually means.”
Blowing smoke out your rear orifice as usual I see…
“Therefore, states can, through this ruling, do so and make a determination as to whether they shuffle them off to the Feds for processing,”
Not so much. States can, should they so chose, inquire as to the status of a person under investigation for another crime, which they could always do. It will be up to the INS to act or not act, exactly as it is now and Kennedy has clearly signaled that holding someone for additional time while you wait for status information is a no no.
End result is that if AZ wants to ask every time they can, but they can’t stop processing the case to wait. My guess is quite quickly we will see revised rules as to the types of cases in which INS will consider issuing a response.
Mittens attempt to give states duties and rights are an overstepping of the bounds. Congress, should they so choose, could give states such duties and rights.
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
12:57 pm
Laws come in several categories:
If they don’t affect you, most people don’t care because compliance is not a problem for them.
If it’s a law a person agrees with, they’ll obey it.
If a person disagrees with a law, they’ll obey it anyway, if they fear punishment.
If a person disagrees with a law and figures they can get away with it or if they’re caught there will be little or no punishment, they’ll do as they please.
At the Federal, state and local levels, we all know cases where laws are selectively enforced, depending on what law it is and/or who you are. That’s why lots of us don’t have much respect for the law.
TruthBe
June 25th, 2012
1:02 pm
Aquagirl, You are the one foaming at the mouth. Must have been something you were sucking? EVERYONE
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
1:05 pm
“States can, should they so chose, inquire as to the status of a person under investigation for another crime, which they could always do.”
Really? Then why all the foaming at the mouth about this SPECIFIC provision when this law was implemented?
Fail, JDW. As usual.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 25th, 2012
1:06 pm
I think the issues involved are very similar to the ones here and would not be surprised to see a 6-3 decision in favor.
———-
If that thought comforts you, enjoy it for the next day or three.
Fear not, when Obozocare is smacked down you can help fix whatever problem you imagine exists by donating to a charity that provides health care to the slothful.
TruthBe
June 25th, 2012
1:10 pm
Aquagirl. You are the one that’s foaming at the mouth. Must have been something you were sucking?
EVERYONE was talking about ILLEGAL Immigration NOT LEGAL Immigration. All of you left-wing nut cases always get that confused. Poor little people. NO one is against LEGAL Immigration except you liars of the left that’s why you and the perverts of the socialist media try to misdirect people.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
1:16 pm
@Tiberius…”Really? Then why all the foaming at the mouth about this SPECIFIC provision when this law was implemented?”
Because under the orginal law they could park them in jail until they got a response…now they can’t.
Have some coffee, wake up, the issue of where control for immigration lies has been settled. Now you and the rest can stop all this blathering about states enforcing provisions and face the facts…the only way to resolve the issue is to get that DO NOTHING bunch of Republicans in Congress to actually sit down and have a reasonable discussion.
Intown
June 25th, 2012
1:17 pm
Finally, we have closure on what the plain language of a 1946 statute says. And the Courts (the ones with brains) said that it says what we all know it says. That Lake Lanier is a multi-purpose project for power generation, flood control, navigation, AND WATER SUPPLY FOR ATLANTA. Well, duh! Alabama, Florida, and the Corps wasting over 20 of our years and millions of our dollars trying to say otherwise is just inexcusable.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
1:22 pm
“Because under the orginal law they could park them in jail until they got a response…now they can’t. ”
As with all your historical recollection, JDW, your memory is faulty.
The issue always was whether they could ask at all.
Another dodge on your part.
And another epic fail.
md
June 25th, 2012
1:23 pm
Truth……one doesn’t have to get into the gutter to disagree with another……take the high road in life and let others travel the low road.
Jefferson
June 25th, 2012
1:28 pm
This is the way it is, like it or not.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
1:28 pm
“the only way to resolve the issue is to get that DO NOTHING bunch of Republicans in Congress to actually sit down and have a reasonable discussion.”
You DO realize that it was Democrats who killed the so-called Dream Act in the Senate, don’t you?
Of course you didn’t.
The vote was 55-41, with 5 Democrats voting against the measure. Those 5 threw your President and those illegal immigrants under the bus in 2010.
So, who is to blame for the do nothing Senate, again?
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
1:41 pm
So Aquagirl @ 12:36 is for open borders. Why bother with borders at all? Just one big happy family from Alaska to Panama! No checks. No borders. NO ILLEGALS!! Maybe we can spread the population out like mayonaise on a sandwich.
Why didn’t we think of this sooner? Now let me sing our new anthem “North America the Beautiful!” The president and I have decided on a new meaning for ILLEGALS They are “guests”.
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
1:47 pm
What is the trend in deportations of illegals? Up or down under the current adminstration
Curious
June 25th, 2012
1:53 pm
Hasn’t Obama been more agressive in deportations and preventing illegal immigration than previous administrations?
The underlying problem for Obama with Southern conservatives is that he is BLACK.
Since the Southern conservatives are in control, the rest follow like sheep.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 25th, 2012
1:55 pm
facedace the facts…the only way to resolve the issue is to get that DO NOTHING bunch of Republicans in Congress to actually sit down and have a reasonable discussion.
——-
Fact: we already have immigration laws.
What we don’t have is the branch of government responsible for enforcing those laws doing their job.
Curious
June 25th, 2012
1:55 pm
I thought Lake Lanier water was for Georgia if they were to put up some money. Atlanta didn’t want to pay.
Also thought the primary reason for the lake was flood control, not drinking water.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
1:56 pm
Aaaaaand, it only too Curious one stinkin’ post to throw out the phony ace card.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 25th, 2012
1:57 pm
Hey Alabama, get your own damn river!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
1:59 pm
“Hasn’t Obama been more agressive in deportations and preventing illegal immigration than previous administrations?”
Deporting – yes. At least if you can believe anything this administration tells you.
Preventing? No.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:00 pm
“Also thought the primary reason for the lake was flood control, not drinking water.”
You DO realize that there can be secondary and tertiary reasons for doing things, don’t you, Curious?
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
June 25th, 2012
2:04 pm
Lets let the illegals in. We will cut off access to banking accounts, health coverage unless they pay in full up front and force people that employ them to provide an employee 10-99 complete with taxes in full for the illegal with no tax breaks. How many do you think would be flocking here then, and who would want to employ them?
Curious
June 25th, 2012
2:08 pm
That’s why cities were given the opportunity to buy in. Believe Gainesville and Lawrenceville did. Atlanta didn’t.
md
June 25th, 2012
2:10 pm
The solution seems to be provided from folks like aquagirl…….those in favor of other folks coming here illegally should be allowed to adopt an illegal and fund said illegal through payroll deduction……..but I’m guessing when asked to do the funding they will slink into the wordwork and demand others pay the bills as they tend to do with everything else.
Come on dems…….raise your hands and volunteer that extra cash……….
Curious
June 25th, 2012
2:10 pm
The best way to prevent illegal immigration is to limit job opportunities An unappreciated benefit of a bad economy.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
2:15 pm
“That’s why cities were given the opportunity to buy in.”
Nope. That’s not how law is determined, Curious.
md
June 25th, 2012
2:19 pm
“The best way to prevent illegal immigration is to limit job opportunities An unappreciated benefit of a bad economy.”
So you are against Obama’s recent order to allow illegal children to obtain work permits??
Curious
June 25th, 2012
2:21 pm
What law you referring to?
If no law then how is it determined?
AL & FL had an argument just like Atlanta. In the end, common sense did prevail.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 25th, 2012
2:27 pm
All Americans should be grateful that the court upheld the free speech rights of people who choose to organize themselves into corporations.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
3:14 pm
@Tiberius…”The issue always was whether they could ask at all.”
As usual you are in error. From CNN…
“It strikes down most provisions, recognizes the federal government’s supremacy in immigration law and enforcement, and narrows the reading of section 2, the administration official said, basically saying that state and local law enforcement cannot do any more than they already are allowed to do under federal statute in regards to requesting immigration status verification from the federal government.”
It was never illegal for local law enforcement to ask INS for status…
JDW
June 25th, 2012
3:21 pm
@Tiberius…”You DO realize that it was Democrats who killed the so-called Dream Act in the Senate, don’t you?”
I would say you are in error yet again but I really think you are just lying. The motion passed 55-41, not enough break the DO NOTHING REPUBLICAN filibuster.
Seems to me any blame falls generally on those that insisted on a 60 vote majority AKA.. DO NOTHING REPUBLICAN’S.
Pedro
June 25th, 2012
4:27 pm
Why not build a China Wall along the border from West to East to end up this problem? The sooner the better…and may be cheaper if we use all the ones that complaint!!!
eggY
June 25th, 2012
7:49 pm
when our ancestors first came to America, did they get permission from the Indians to enter the country?