Monday, June 25, 2012

Arisona Law - Some stays, Some Dunt

                                                                                         


9th US Court reversed on the meat of Arizona Immo Law!  USA UAS USA
The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision.  And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.





0:16
Amy Howe: 
Here's the second and only other opinion in Arizona.
10:16
Amy Howe: 
Justice Kennedy announces.
10:16
Amy Howe: 
The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Justice Kagan does not participate.
10:17
Amy Howe: 
The Court rules that Section 3, 5, and 6 are preempted.
10:17
Tom: 
Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated.  One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.
10:18
Amy Howe: 
It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released.
10:19
Kali: 

We will have more substanative analysis of the decision in Arizona v. US from Lyle later this morning or early this afternoon. We are also looking forward to guest analysis on the decision from Marc Miller and Jack Chin from Univ. of Arizona and UC Davis law schools, respectively, Lucas Guttentag of Yale & Stanford, Jay Sekulow from the ACLJ, Peter Spiro at Temple, John Eastman at Chapman, Rich Samp at the Washington Legal Foundation, and Kevin Johnson, also at UC Davis. Tune back in for their posts. 

10:19
Tom: 
The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the "check your papers" provision that commands officers to check immigration status.
10:20
Amy Howe: 
The opinion also says that today's ruling does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law.
10:20
Tom: 
The court says that it is not clear whether application of this provision will interfere with immigration law.
10:20
Amy Howe: 
There are ongoing proceedings on Section 2(B) and whether it involves racial profiling; that issue was NOT before the Court today.
10:20
Kali: 
Here's a link to the opinion in Arizona v. US: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
10:21
Tom: 

Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.

10:21
Amy Howe: 
Justice Kennedy is still reciting from the opinion.
10:23
Amy Howe: 
We do not expect any additional opinions today, so NO health care today.
10:23
Amy Howe: 
For our readers who are not lawyers, "preempted" means "trumped," in essence.
10:24
Tom: 
We should have word for you on what other day(s) the Court is going to issue opnioins soon.


11 comments:

Rodger the Real King of France said...

As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.

Kristophr said...

They did take out and shoot the provision most likely to have any real effect ... the one allowing prosecution for hiring an illegal.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

If you loo0ked at Drudge shortly after my post it appeared that the law was gutted. The link wnet to the WaPost that had the banner headline:

Court strikes down key provisions of Arizona immigration law!
followed by a few sentences. I laughed because I'd followed it live on SCOTUS Blog, and knew that was not the real news. I just checked again, and the Post is a lot more somber:

Court strikes down key provisions of Arizona immigration law _ but not ‘show-me-papers’ part

Took them about two hours to figure it out though.

Anonymous said...

Just saw where "the Obama Administration suspended the program in Arizona that allowed state and local law enforcement to help enforce federal immigration law.."
Now the spoiled brat is sucking his thumb and sulking.
If we keep pricking his thin skin and humiliating him, maybe he'll jump off the Truman balcony.
Fuck him. November is coming.
Lt. Col. Gen. Tailgunner dick

Rodger the Real King of France said...

We're dealing with a bunch of third-rate sorority girls with this lot. Petty, venal, and scratch your eyes out if you cross them - and Obama's the worst of the lot. When I read that Maxine Waters said to the Tea Party "Let's Get It On!," my finger didn't stop twitching for an hour.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dear maxine , please get the ball rolling . I'm begging you . ; ) > SMIBSID

rickn8or said...

Roger, SMIBSID, you know Maxine means "Let's you and him fight."

All hat, no cattle.

Celebrate Homogeneity said...

So. Now Officer Friendly can shout "papieren SCHNEL!" any old time. I feel so much more secure.

Celebrate Homogeneity said...

So. Now Officer Friendly can shout "papieren SCHNEL!" any old time. I feel so much more secure.

Vladtheimp said...

Memo to Jan Brewer:
1. You won the big issue on checking the immigration status of law breakers;

2. You know you won because the head of the Chicago Mafia instructed Sergeant Schultz to announce that Homeland Security (whatever that means now), will not take police officer's calls who identify law-breaking illegal immigrants;

3. Have your officers take all the information of the illegals and establish a database on all these charmers;

4. Have your administrative staff correlate any subsequent violations by these intruders;

5. Every time one of them indulges in: (1) causing an accident without a license/insurance; (2) causing an accident/ killing or maiming a citizen of Arizona by driving drunk; (3) killing an Arizonan; (4) feloniously attacking an Arizonan; (5) raping anyone in Arizona; (6) utilizing emergency medical facilities in Arizona, (5) selling drugs in Arizona, et al - send the record to Eric Holder and send it to Fox News (not the German Sheppard) and influential alternative media sites, and identify it as another result of the policies of our current democrat President and Senate.

And, especially when the subsequent crime is a felony, charge Sec.DHS as an accessory.

Anonymous said...

VladTheImp, why not send the bill for all the above to the DNC? After all, the consumers are all D votes on the hoof, right? In the country causing harm and taking up jobs 'mericans won't do for $.35/hr. If you have to pay taxes, you can't underbid...
Yah, send the bill to the DNC or Harry or 1600. Calculate up what this decision has cost since... whenever you like, and advertise it.
tomw

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.