In Arizona case, court doesn’t betray its alleged ideological gap
Oh, that zany, right-wing Supreme Court.
Liberals have been working themselves into a frenzy about the possibility that the court’s four conservative justices and the less-predictable Anthony Kennedy will overturn the 2010 federal health-care reform, a.k.a. Obamacare. Such a ruling figures into two of the “5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics,” according to The Atlantic’s James Fallows. “Court packing,” the idea of adding justices to the court which was last threatened by Franklin Roosevelt when the court wouldn’t accept as constitutional some of his New Deal programs, is already being suggested on the opinion pages of the Washington Post.
Other commentators have warned — presumably for the benefit of any justices who might peruse their columns or blogs — that the court risks discrediting itself if it rules in a way that just happens to go against President Barack Obama. Unexplained is exactly how and why this discrediting will occur, given that majorities of the public across partisan lines deem the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.
So it must have been bewildering for some of these hand-wringers to find Kennedy and the court’s conservative chief justice, John Roberts, joining three of the liberals Monday to overturn much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. (The fourth liberal, Elena Kagan, had argued the case as U.S. solicitor general and recused herself from it.)
For political junkies, there’s no buzz-kill like a busted narrative.
Oh, some people’s favorable reactions to Monday’s judgment were more muted than they might have been, were there not a potentially disagreeable (to them) ruling waiting to be released Thursday. For both the left and the right, the bigger prize is the Obamacare ruling, with its conceivably far-reaching implications for the federal government’s power over the individual. But the Roberts-Kennedy alliance with the court’s left wing on the Arizona ruling means we’ll see even more partisan contortions of logic than usual should the court strike down all or part of Obamacare.
Not that the Arizona case doesn’t carry its own import, both in practical terms and for the everlasting tug-of-war between federal and state powers and responsibilities.
In Arizona, the court recognized an extremely limited role for states when it comes to immigration policy. The court’s majority deemed even states’ enforcement of federal immigration law to be out of bounds if it could lead to state prosecutions the feds might have forgone. This, the court reasoned, could infringe on the federal government’s “control over enforcement” and the “integrated scheme of regulation” Congress had created. Never mind that Arizona created the law because the feds’ “control over enforcement” has been poor and Congress’ “integrated scheme of regulation” ineffective.
The only contested section of the law not overturned concerns the requirement for police who have arrested someone to check that person’s immigration status if there is reason to believe he might be in the country illegally. The court essentially said state courts must interpret that part of the law — does it apply equally to jaywalkers, who might be detained longer than usual for an immigration-status check, and drunk drivers, who probably wouldn’t? — before it could consider challenges. Which means that part of the law stands to be curtailed, at least, as well.
In one particularly head-scratching element of the ruling, the majority found that states could not impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants seeking employment because federal law named only civil penalties. “There is no more reason to believe that this rejection was expressive of a desire that there be no [criminal] sanctions on employees,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, “than expressive of a desire that such sanctions be left to the States.”
Or as Justice Samuel Alito put it: “With any statutory scheme, Congress chooses to do some things and not others. If that alone were enough to demonstrate preemptive intent, there would be little left over for the States to regulate, especially now that federal authority reaches so far and wide. States would occupy tiny islands in a sea of federal power.”
As it happens, I have my own misgivings about parts of the Arizona law. Having lived and traveled in “show me your papers” countries, I see no place in a free society for police to stop anyone on the street just to ask if he’s legally present. (This differs from a status check of someone arrested for another reason.) And state solutions to illegal immigration are almost always going to be inferior to federal ones.
That said, states bear the brunt of working under ineffective federal immigration policies. It is understandable why Arizona — and Georgia, among others — felt compelled to try something new when Congress will not. And I find it hard to justify barring states from being more diligent enforcers of federal law than the feds have been.
So there are many things to say about the Arizona ruling. That it reflects an immutably ideologically divided group of judges, well, that is not one of them.
– 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
154 comments Add your comment
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
5:07 pm
Something to keep in mind when you hear babbling about public-private partnerships.
In my opinion, public/private partnerships are usually a way for somebody’s buddy to make a whole lot of money, while spreading the risks to the Great Unwashed. It goes well, somebody gets well; it goes bad, the taxpayers are on the hook.
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
5:08 pm
Make a run: You’re right, I let Finn get away with murder on here. Oh well.
Kyle Wingfield
June 25th, 2012
5:10 pm
jconservative: Just curious … do you think Congress would be more likely to get off their rear-ends if state legislatures still picked the senators?
JDW
June 25th, 2012
5:11 pm
@Tiberius…”Finn, do you EVER stay on topic?”
At least somebody around here is telling the truth…it sure isn’t Mittens.
Make a run for the border
June 25th, 2012
5:15 pm
Kyle
And not the one I directed the post to earlier?
Really? You are a good writer, so I assume you are a good reader.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
5:22 pm
@Tiberius…relative to your earlier blathering regarding the inablity of local law enforcement to check status…
From the AJC relative to Jessica Colotl
“She was handed over to federal immigration officers as part of a local-federal partnership called 287(g), which allows Cobb County deputies to check the immigration status of inmates.”
I also noticed where the Feds have now told Homeland Security not to answer the phone when AZ calls to check status…
yuzeyurbrane
June 25th, 2012
5:29 pm
rafe, I, too, did not like everything in the Court’s decision and I am certain you and I probably disagree over what we like and don’t like about it. But it was a reasonable analysis based on how they interpreted the law by most of the Justices. That is the rule of law as I see and therefore I am comfortable with their decision although I am not ecstatic.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 25th, 2012
5:31 pm
Section 2(B) also provides that “any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” The high court’s unanimous approval of Section 2(B) is a strong rebuke to the administration’s theory of executive power. – Taranto, WSJ
And, as usual, obozo will just ignore the law.
md
June 25th, 2012
5:33 pm
“States would occupy tiny islands in a sea of federal power.”
Would?? More like already are……….as the quote on page one demonstrates, be wary of the monster one creates…..the States no longer have the say or the power they were given by the founding fathers….the freakinstein monster has taken the reins.
Want proof? On the very same day the SC delivers it’s ruling:
“The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.”
Careful, the monster is on the loose…………
md
June 25th, 2012
5:37 pm
If I’m the governor of AZ, as they are found to be there illegally, I’m putting them on the bus and dropping them off at the front gate of the White House and Congress………
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
5:41 pm
If I’m the governor of AZ, as they are found to be there illegally, I’m putting them on the bus
That would be awesome. Jan Brewer serving like 400 years for kidnapping and unlawful detention? PRICELESS.
Please e-mail your suggestion to Governor Finger-Wag immediately. God I hope she takes the bait.
Don't Tread
June 25th, 2012
5:42 pm
“I can’t believe that the founding fathers ever envisioned a time when the President would pick and choose which laws he would enforce.” Or break, for that matter.
So now AZ can’t enforce their law, and the feds have basically told them “screw you” as far as federal enforcement of immigration law.
Storm clouds on the horizon…
Ol' Timer
June 25th, 2012
5:55 pm
The Obama adminstration are novices when it comes to deviousness when compared to Cheney and the Bush administration and, I don’t believe any of the deviousness of the Obama adminstration has cost thousands of young lives lost and the tens of thousands of young lives maimed and tens of thousands of young lives wrecked by adventurous involvement in unwinnable conflicts in the middle east.
And, the unexplainable situation is that, if given the opportunity, this same party would double-down on our involvement in unwinnable conflicts in the same region. Un-freakin’-believeable!!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
5:59 pm
Tiberius: November 2012 Obama loses his re-election bid. Seeing the ability to replace aging Supreme Court justices slipping away, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg retires, effective immediately.
——————
Under normal circumstances it seems like an opposition party would have a difficult time filibustering a Supreme Court nominee, but in your scenario Republicans would be more than willing and able to filibuster and would be supported by the American people (and a goodly number of Democrats too).
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
6:02 pm
Ol’ Timer: I don’t believe any of the deviousness of the Obama adminstration has cost thousands of young lives lost and the tens of thousands of young lives maimed
———————-
Did we get out of Afghanistan sometime during the last three and a half years, and I just missed it?
Didn’t think so.
As for “deviousness” did you not see the clip of Obozo with his hot mike giving away our missile defenses to the Russians? That is, if Americans are foolish enough to give him the “flexibility” afforded by a second term?
md
June 25th, 2012
6:05 pm
I also find the link about Romney lying quite comical……to establish that Romney is lying, the author quotes other lies as his source……too funny.
And for those that don’t know how the game is played, the cbo scores using only data provided to it by it’s handlers…….and when the stimulus started counting jobs to include those that never were in jeopardy of losing their jobs in the first place, then the numbers are never going to be correct….
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-12-stimulus-counting_N.htm
md
June 25th, 2012
6:13 pm
“That would be awesome. Jan Brewer serving like 400 years for kidnapping and unlawful detention? PRICELESS.”
Wrong…..they have the right to hold them if stopped for other offenses……if found to be illegal, the feds will tell them to release them…….the feds didn’t say where they had to release them……
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
6:22 pm
if found to be illegal, the feds will tell them to release them…….the feds didn’t say where they had to release them……
One of the reasons I no longer vote Republican is because of creepy public fantasizing like this. So let me encourage you one more time to spread your ideas, I don’t think you realize how they look to folks outside your echo chamber.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
6:25 pm
Good grief, another libtard claiming they used to vote Republican.
So played, and so obviously dishonest.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
I can’t help but wonder “Where did we go wrong?”
We have a president who cares more about illegal aliens than legal citizens.
We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.
We have a debt so large that it makes Greece look like Bill Gates bank..
We have politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine.
We have sworn enemies of America locked in comfort on a tropical island and nobody knows what to do with them.
We have China making our goods, financing our debts and owning prize US real estate.
We are buying helicopters from Russia.
We have paid & unpaid Dem (Bush did it!) agitators posting insulting anti-Romney lies on a conservative blog about immigration.
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
I can’t help but wonder “Where did we go wrong?”
We have a president who cares more about illegal aliens than legal citizens.
We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.
We have a debt so large that it makes Greece look like Bill Gates bank..
We have politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine.
We have sworn enemies of America locked in comfort on a tropical island and nobody knows what to do with them.
We have China making our goods, financing our debts and owning prize US real estate.
We are buying helicopters from Russia.
We have paid & unpaid Dem (Bush did it!) agitators posting insulting anti-Romney lies on a conservative blog about immigration.
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:29 pm
md
With the Oblamer regime refusing to enforce the Immigration laws and the court saying the states are not allowed to enforce the law, it is time for the border States to try something new. Playing off your “road trip idea”, how about this. Using money previously expended for immigration enforcement, buy some state buses and hire some drivers. When illegals are apprehended offer them a free ride to any blue state they choose. Bus loads of illegals unloading in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington, DC would do a lot toward motivating the Dems to help close the borders.
Or, we could elect a strong majority of Republicans to the House and Senate and elect Romney.
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
6:31 pm
So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Hitting the “submit” button twice?
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:34 pm
Uhoh…I did not post it twice! Just read it once. Thank you.. OK…so don’t read it at all!!
md
June 25th, 2012
6:35 pm
“So let me encourage you one more time to spread your ideas, I don’t think you realize how they look to folks outside your echo chamber.”
Echo chambers are relative aquagirl…….based on perception.
I’d say my chamber may be a bit bigger than your chamber based on these numbers:
Rasmussen poll “finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government is not making enough effort to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Only 16% feel the government is doing too much to deport illegals, while 25% say the current amount of effort is about right.”
A lot depends on which poll one looks at on any given day, but the majority of what I’ve read show folks don’t much care for “illegal” immigrants………
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:37 pm
Submit button twice? But the automatic moderator knows better. Ha! Asleep on the job!
md
June 25th, 2012
6:39 pm
AG….we need to get you a “Hug a Line Jumper” bumper sticker so the legal immigrants know how you feel.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
6:41 pm
Yes, md, you said….
(Some) folks don’t care for Illegal immigrants. Not Aquagirl. She doesn’t care for legal conservatives.
md
June 25th, 2012
6:42 pm
Rafe…..works for me…..those States that prefer not to accept the extra burden/cost would save a lot of time and aggravation by letting illegals know they are not welcome but would gladly fund the trip to a State that would take them with open arms…….States such as CA, that are 25 billion in the red but not too sure why………..
iggy
June 25th, 2012
6:44 pm
Oh Goody…the Actor n Chief will be in Atlanta tomorrow and as a bonus he will be on a movie set. WOW!! Its a 2 for 1. A President and Actor all rolled into one. I better get the smelling salts.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:45 pm
Ronald Reagan once said something to the effect of … The Federal government did not create the States, the States created the Federal Government. Can we get a mulligan?
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
6:48 pm
md
The big thing is no one can say it is illegal. The blue states have used this strategy to move the homeless to Florida, when they want to get them out of town for a Super Bowl or political convention. Just post signs, IF YOU ARE HERE ILLEGALLY WE OFFER FREE TRANSPORTATION ELSEWHERE.
iggy
June 25th, 2012
6:50 pm
“So I can only ask again: Where did we go wrong?”
Correct me if Im wrong but I beleive it all began with the group of drunken, morally bankrupt, spoiled little rich kids, the kennedys.
Bobbys attitude was “we can get away with anything because guess what…we have!!” Seems the lib-tards love behaving like their heros, the…*vomit*… kennedys.
md
June 25th, 2012
7:10 pm
I guess it is after 5 so Finn is gone for the day, but he (and others) might find the info in this book informative in relation to his oft erroneously posted info about red states and blue sates and tax dollars……glance through the chapter titled “Who pays more taxes”……and hint, it isn’t the dems.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Democrats_and_Republicans_Rhetoric_and_R.html?id=96bItJAoRysC
md
June 25th, 2012
7:14 pm
“The taxpayer – that’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”
Ronald Reagan
Tiberius - Banned by Bookman and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
7:22 pm
JDW,,that program you cite requires the police force in question to undergo ICE specific training and to be certified before they can perform those checks.
It is NOT SOP for everybody.
Once again, epic failure on your part to understand laws.
tiredofIT
June 25th, 2012
7:36 pm
“Ronald Reagan spoken like a Free American.” The astrology president.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 25th, 2012
7:52 pm
Obozo would kill for that astrology president’s job creation record.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
7:54 pm
The astrology president.
Yeah, astrology is out of style now, it requires a birth certificate to participate.
jconservative
June 25th, 2012
8:07 pm
Kyle Wingfield June 25th, 2012 5:10 pm
jconservative: Just curious … do you think Congress would be more likely to get off their rear-ends if state legislatures still picked the senators?
YES!
jconservative
June 25th, 2012
8:13 pm
“We have a Supreme Court that almost makes a state null & void.
We have a constitution that is either ignored or twisted.”
Scalia is wrong in his dissenting opinion. The states do not have sovereignty. They surrendered it when they approved the Constitution. But then, dissenting opinions are not law, they are an opportunity to make a statement from the soapbox. See Justive Stevens dissenting opinions as the classic example.
Since 1803 the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 25th, 2012
8:27 pm
From ABC News
Jimmy Carter, America’s 39 th president, denounced the Obama administration for “clearly violating” 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, writing in a New York Times op-ed on Monday that the “United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights.”
So where is the outrage on the left about our “war criminal” in the WH? I guess Oblamer considered W to be a “War Criminal”, and he has imitated Bush on most everything else, so why not.
Karen
June 25th, 2012
8:29 pm
Scalia is one scary dude. But no frenzy here, just look how dumb Jan Brewer is and the Pubs think she is an older wiser Sarah Palin.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)
June 25th, 2012
8:31 pm
Rafe, by the time it’s all over Obozo will have two or three Nobel Peace prizes. That’s just how it is in the reality-free zone known as Libtardia.
Aquagirl
June 25th, 2012
8:44 pm
Yeah, astrology is out of style now, it requires a birth certificate to participate.
I shouldn’t laugh at birther jokes, but that was funny as hell.
Jm
June 25th, 2012
9:16 pm
Kyle i hope you’ve read this. And I hope jay contemplates it too
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/12/opinion/gergen-supreme-court/index.html
Media, politicians need to show maturity
When the decision comes down, it is equally important that the media and the nation’s political leaders show some maturity and balance in appraising the court’s action.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward - Again)
June 25th, 2012
9:18 pm
No, what’s important is that we dance merrily on the grave of Obozocare and thank the Supreme Court for restoring the natural order–people before politicians–especially where our health care is concerned.
Don Abernethy
June 25th, 2012
9:22 pm
With all the liberals in Washington, the media,and now the Supreme Court our county will continue our downward slide until finally we will be a third world nation. And the voters can not see it coming.
@@
June 25th, 2012
9:24 pm
Enter your comments here
@@
June 25th, 2012
9:25 pm
Oops! I have no comment.