Justice on case against Arizona: ‘You can see it’s not selling very well’
Good news for fans of Georgia’s HB 87, from the Associated Press:
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
62 comments Add your comment
John Q.
April 25th, 2012
6:27 pm
The Government of The United States is supposed to enforce every one of it’s laws without passion or prejudice. The U.S. Government’s refusal to enforce the immigration laws subsequently invalidates every other law on the books. If we as tax payers cannot pick and choose which laws which we should obey, then the government cannot pick and choose which laws it should enforce. It’s black and white. Either enforce them all or they ALL are invalid!
Centrist
April 25th, 2012
7:11 pm
@ John Q.
I don’t disagree, but half the Supreme Court probably does:
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.
td
April 25th, 2012
7:47 pm
zeke
April 25th, 2012
5:27 pm
scotus is as nonpartisan as td, only reason obamacare to be struck down is politics not scholarly research.
It is not politics but philosophy. You have 4 members of the court that believe the Constitution is a living document and must be interpreted in a way that best fits the ideas of the people of the time. They find words in the document to fit their view point at the time they are ruling. You have 4 members that believe the Constitution should have a literal interpretation. They believe that the founders laid out a set of “rules” and values that the Federal government and the state governments should abide by. They believe there is a way in the Constitution to change the Constitution if a generation believes a part of the document does not fit the times. You then have one member that is open to be persuaded but leans toward the literal interpretation side.
We are either a nation of participles and laws or we make up what we think feels right at the time.
td
April 25th, 2012
7:53 pm
Centrist
April 25th, 2012
6:21 pm
If enough (mostly red states) are allowed to enforce the law on illegals then the illegals will either go home (doubtful) or move to states that will not enforce the law (mostly blue states). When the non enforcement states have to pay all these bill their voters will change the minds of their politicians.
Centrist
April 25th, 2012
7:56 pm
@ td – So far your theory has not worked in California.
td
April 25th, 2012
8:15 pm
Centrist
April 25th, 2012
7:56 pm
@ td – So far your theory has not worked in California.
There have been a lot of people that have moved out of CA to AZ and NV the past ten years. If it were not for silicon valley and the sun in southern CA the laws would change. After the Jerry Brown tax increases take effect for a few more years we will see if my theory is more true or not.
Centrist
April 25th, 2012
8:31 pm
Maybe their level of pain has not yet been made high enough – they say they can only cut Education, Police, and Fire to pretend to balance their budget. Here is a partial list of the over 500 CA agencies:
http://patriotpost.us/reference/california-agencies/
fire eater
April 26th, 2012
6:04 am
If the Chamber Pot of Corruption had its way, Georgia would have nixed illegal alien control as well. Go Arizona!
SDF
April 26th, 2012
7:03 am
But-but-but… all the “experts” who work for the media told us this was just right-wing nuttery! Why, it’s like they had no idea what they were talking about!
zeke
April 26th, 2012
9:00 am
td i doubt our forefathers ever envisioned how difficult it would be to keep our constitution relevant in today’s more complex and real time world…..they did a masterful job given the knowledge they possessed at the time. things written in stone often become relics.
J Throckmorton Malcontent
April 26th, 2012
10:02 am
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Jeebus
April 26th, 2012
3:41 pm
J Throckmorton Malcontent
So I take it you are in favor of legal immigration , correct?