Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on May 26, 2011, 11:53:42 AM
-
http://admin.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/26/supreme-court-ok-arizonas-business-immigration-law/
In the 5-3 ruling the majority said that while federal law says the national government can’t make electronic checks of employees’ work-eligibility mandatory, the law does not bar states from doing so.
10th amendment strikes again.
Suck it, Statists. =D
ETA: The more I read it, the happier I get.
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar states from doing so."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
"The law does not bar..."
Awesome.
THAT is how you read the Constitution.
-
while on the home front
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2011/03/arizona-and-kansas-back-off-immigration-bills.html
Wow, the home states of Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio and Kris Kobach decide there are lines they don't want to cross. Arizona's legislature has killed five bills including the controversial birthright citizenship law. And Kansas has snubbed it's anti-immigrant pied piper (and Secretary of State) Kris Kobach by rejecting the Arizona-style bill he designed. From MSNBC regarding Arizona:
Majority Republicans were split in their votes on the defeated bills, which included two measures intended to force a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. The other three dealt with health care, public services and everyday activities such as driving.
With business leaders urging lawmakers to put the issue aside to avoid damaging the still-ailing economy, "it's time for us to take a timeout," said Republican Sen. John McComish of Phoenix. "It's something that the people don't want us to be focusing on."
Critics also said the bills rejected Thursday were over-reaching and flawed.
and this
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-19/arizona-immigration-law-why-the-republicans-are-retreating/2/#
-
Encouraging, but another case of being one vote (minus Kagan's recusal) from the abyss.
-
I'm glad to hear it. The AZ E-verify law always seemed very common sense to me. It at least helps reduce economic incentive for employers and employees to break the law.
The issue of who should be legally allowed in is a separate debate, which still needs to be hashed out.
Mechanisms to enforce laws should be in place, otherwise the laws have no meaning.
-
Encouraging, but another case of being one vote (minus Kagan's recusal) from the abyss.
Interesting that Kagan recused herself.
I'm going to bet she will be recusing herself from as many decisions as possible up until Obamacare comes before the Supreme Court, so that when she doesn't recuse herself, she can claim that she recused herself all these other times, so we can trust her judgement on this (lack of) recusal. [tinfoil]
-
is this a case where she had to recuse herself because she was involved in the run up on case?
-
is this a case where she had to recuse herself because she was involved in the run up on case?
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, since she had been the administration's solicitor general last year when the case was being appealed to the high court.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/26/scotus.arizona.law/index.html
All the links I have found are unspecific as to how she was involved, except that the was SG or "worked" on the case.
-
Footnote 6 in Roberts’ opinion:
“It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text.”
:laugh:
-
Footnote 6 in Roberts’ opinion:
“It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text.”
:laugh:
Oh ouch!!!!! That's gotta leave a mark on the lib side of the court. :D
-
snubbed it's anti-immigrant
;/