Federal government 1, states, 0.
The Supreme Court today struck down as unconstitutional most of Arizona’s controversial law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigrants.
[…]
The court, in a 5-3 ruling, left standing only the “show me your papers” part of the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they’ve stopped or detained if a “reasonable suspicion” exists that they are in the country illegally.
The court indicated, however, that even that section could face further legal challenges.
The short of it: states may not require that illegals — sorry, “undocumented nobles” may be the better descriptor, they being the best of us and all that — be documented citizens to apply for employment, because such a provision infringes on federal authority to police illegal immigration.
— Which the federal authority has expressly said it will not do. So, checkmate, federalist bitches!
Originalism, it turns out, is too constraining to judicial power. So SCOTUS has opted to retain the power of a stealth superlegislature — and privilege political correctness above the Constitution.
Meaning, the left has won.
Meanwhile, SCOTUS has pushed off the ruling on ObamaCare until Thursday — at which point we’ll likely find that inactivity is itself an activity, and as such, of course can be dictated by a federal authority.
Now shut up and eat your peas, citizen.
****
update: from Justice Kennedy, “the Decider”:
“Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns,” he said. “Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. 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. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations.”
Here’s the way I read that: some broken laws are more serious than others, and the federal government has discretion about which laws it chooses to enforce — whether the states affected like it or not.
Then, I’m not a lawyer. But I probably should be — because soon, whether or not you’re following the law will be based entirely on a matter of government whim, and being able to speak the language will be something of a necessity.
J. Scalia (in dissent):
Well, that’s a bitch.
Dissent is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?
Federalism is done. 9th and 10th, done. It’s either secede or submit — and we’ve already heard how dastardly secession is.
So.
I will say though that Scalia’s dissent is a good one in that regard — and that it shows that the Court is now less originalist than it is concerned with its own prior precedent, regardless of how wrong that prior precedent might be.
It was a self-interested and politically correct decision, and that’s what the left has been paving the way for for years upon years upon years.
The specter of Kennedy and Roberts both ruling with the feds on ObamaCare — as Pelosi and I believe Allahpundit both predicted — is more real than I ever believed. Though it’s also true that they may believe the way they ruled here gives them cover.
Either way, basing votes on such considerations is more that just regrettable. It signals that this is all over, and that speed is the only thing left to decide how quickly.
If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
Whenever I hear my moral and intellectual superiors expounding that the U.S. should be more European in character, I always agree, to the extent that I’d like to see Texas, California, New York and Illinois at each other’s throats the way the Germans, French, Italians and Spanish so often are.
I still think Arizona should invest in a fleet of buses to be used to transport undocumented workers to the Beltway, where they can take up residence in the various federal office buildings. Let Washington live with the conditions they mandate on the rest of us.
Just for morbid fun, my prediction is as follows. The worst, most chaotic outcome regarding Oromneycare would be striking down the mandate while leaving the remainder of the 2000+ pages of rent-seeking and taxation and micromanagement in place. So I am going with that.
On the other hand: Anthony Kennedy. So perhaps Nancy Pelosi will have a celebration after all.
What is in this bill that we had to pass in order to discover it? That the citizen may be presumed to be guilty until deemed innocent by unelected bureaucrats. Guilty of what? That is none of your business. The important thing is that you understand, finally, that every aspect of your life from your doctor’s records to your diet to your blood pressure, is the government’s business. Dare I say, property.
[…] – Which the federal authority has expressly said it will not do. So, checkmate, federalist bitches! […]
In fact, given what the mission of this blog has been, I see no real reason to continue. We’re over. Most people won’t know it or feel it or acknowledge it, but it’s settled science from my perspective — not because of the ruling itself, but because of what the ruling says about the relationship b/w states and federal authorities, and about the role of the actual Constitution and its legislative intent, which is now to be permanently subjugated to the PC efforts of philosopher kings and queens themselves pressured by political considerations.
Game, set, match to the Left.
BTW, any predictions about how severely Mittens will oppose Oromneycare should SCOTUS declare it constitutional?
I’m not a student of the court, so have no store of facts to spur this particular speculation on the pending ACA decision. Nevertheless, I wonder: as we see that J. Kennedy has written the Arizona v United States (yipe! I almost wrote “Untied” States) would that imply we should expect some one of the other Justices to have the responsibility for the ACA decision? And if so, would that most probably be C. J. Roberts himself?
Here’s how you settle the science with no muss, no fuss: AP describes the part of the law that was kept intact as the show us your papers provision. My local conservative radio news reader just repeated the phrase.
My prediction was 5-4 the mandate is unconstitutional, 5-4 the rest of Obama care is constiutional, Justice Kennedy the only justice joining both majorities.
My waggish observation is that the Constitution only guarantees the States a Republican “form” of Government, not the “substance.”
Although how you argue Arizona isn’t being invaded is beyond me.
“. . . how you argue . . . ”
Oh, I’m guessing that’s fairly easy to describe: simply intone after they:
Fishing expedition.
Congressional Overreach.
Partisan Witchhunt.
So “Justice” Kennedy would argue that, as suddenly orphaned kids, Lyle and Erik Menendez deserved leniency?
Weren’t the Menendez kidz born on the wrong side of the border to qualify for the tender ministrations of J. Kennedy’s attention?
I agree that there is an excellent chance it’s 6-3 in favor of upholding Obamacare on Thursday. In which case it is definitely game, set and match.
The fact we have to wait like this, dancing on tenterhooks to see how barometric pressure, spicy food and/or the commute have affected one lawyer’s mood speaks volumes about our present state, not a one of them good.
Not necessarily geoff, but if CA had a “no leniency for parricides!” law, he might find that unconstitutional on the grounds that a judge should have the discretion to take into account “the human realities” behind extenuating circumstances as such.
I figured that they “likely pose less danger” of ever killing their parents again and that “immediate human concerns” would be to exercise “discretion” and not harass the poor orphaned children.
[…] cites this part of the dissent by Justice Scalia: […] But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona […]
Anytime I hear “equities” and “discretion”, I know that law is going to be bent or broken.
Weren’t the Menendez kidz born on the wrong side of the border to qualify for the tender ministrations of J. Kennedy’s attention?
The Menendez kids were born in the US, sdferr. Their father was Cuban and their mother American.
They lost the jury when they reloaded the shotguns to blast dear old mom.
I think sdferr’s point was that if the Menendezezez had been born in Mexico, Kennedy would have made sure that they remain above the law.
Yes, that.
I know. I’m just a font of murder trivia.
Are predictions on the ACA ruling still being taken?
I will go out on a limb and predict that the whole thing is tossed out. The Court will rule 6-3 with Sotomayor going rogue and siding with the conservatives due to the lack of a severability clause that would preclude tossing out only the individual mandate.
Bonus points gained because she is an Obama appointee and will make liberals heads spin and thus was one-a them! How are they going to huff about activist judges now?
It is also Justice Sotomayor’s birthday today. Happy Birthday, Sonia. Do the right thing. (pun intended)
“…being able to speak the language will be something of a necessity.”
They don’t call it a “Bar” because they’re serving drinks, boychick. It’s a BAR to ENTRY, to keep out the riff-raff that no spikka da language.
That’s been kinda obvious for a while now.
this is one of those it cuts both ways things I think – this decision also implies that states also don’t have the power to pass laws what are *more* lenient than federal law once our failshit federal government has decided to enact their failshit policies in some area, yes?
“Are predictions on the ACA ruling still being taken? “
– Yes, but you must be at the reservations counter by 30 minutes before showtime to be seated. First come, first served, no exceptions,
– Write your entries legiably in Hispanic or Chinese, and avoid hanging chads.
[…] On the other hand, SCOTUS has ruled that a state has no right to enforce laws that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government (including state prosecution of those who hire illegals)–even if the federal government has made it abundantly clear that it is not interested in enforcing federal law in certain situations. In other words, this ruling affirms the “right” of the federal government to enforce the law in a prejudicial manner. […]
– I wonder how long it would take to “fix” this problem if all 57 States had to share equally in the costs of illegal immigration, and those costs were directly deducted from the tax revenues collected by Washington.
So, supposing some State enactment of a law in perfect agreement with an existing Federal law down to the jot and tittle, that would by definition be ‘more severe/less lenient’ than the simple Federal law standing by itself, because the State added to the Fed is greater than the Fed alone?
Doesn’t that describe the Arizona law that was just found to be mostly unconstitutional?
Take your standing and go try to make it to SCOTUS re: sanctuary state status.
“Take your dissembling and shove it” would have been more to the point, Jeff.
Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police
By Stephen Dinan
–
The Washington Times
Monday, June 25, 2012
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.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.
link
re: newrouter’s link
One word: trebuchet.
Install it at the border, anyone caught crossing gets a free flight home.
Someone on the left wakes up to Obama bull-shittery
Obama is a fucking dilettante and it’s about time someone besides us starts saying so.
OT: Doris Kearns Goodwin is on the teevee. She looks like George Washington.
The plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin? Is it an ethics lecture?
Four years ago, that was a feature, not a bug as far as the Left was concerned.
Priorities, little leftists. The Won can’t heal the oceans until he heals the sick and cures the unions.
And really, what do they have to complain about? Obama’s the most successful Democrat in 48 years, in terms of enacting the progressive agenda.
Which, not coincidently, is why he now finds himself in the predicament he finds himself in.
Then, I’m not a lawyer. But I probably should be — because soon, whether or not you’re following the law will be based entirely on a matter of government whim, and being able to speak the language will be something of a necessity.
Only if you assume that you will need to operate under the “rules ” of a post-constitutional society. If the rules are purely arbitrary, then it doesn’t help to speak the language. The only correct answer is to say, “Sorry. Nope. Your rules are not applicable. Fuck you. Hands on your head.”