397 replies to this topic

[The Progressive]

Two major SCOTUS rulings are expected this week on the constitutionality of the ACA and Arizona's immigration policies.

The water is murky on both, but their impact on the country will be huge.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Spain also requested EU aid this weekend, sending the stock market down the drains. Could shape up to be a very rough week for Obama.

[Cocomaan]

Nice title.

[Maithanet]

The Arizona Ruling came out about an hour ago.  Looks like most of the Arizona law has been struck down.  

[Cocomaan]

Much of it was struck down, but the worst part (PAPERS, CITIZEN?) was not.

[The Progressive]

Some relevant stuff:

Quote

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, adding that "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."

The majority concluded the federal government had the power to block SB1070, though the court upheld one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

In its ruling, the high court made clear the immigration status provision could still face future constitutional challenges depending on how the state enforces it.


Provisions struck down included:
-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

SCOTUS reaffirm federal government power over states on immigration policies, which should set a nice precedent for other lawsuits in various states that were itching to adopt similar discriminatory laws.

Edited by It's Complicated, 25 June 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[Triskele]

It sounds like it's almost certain that the health care ruling will come on Thursday mid-morning Eastern time.

[IheartTesla]

If the federal government can regulate immigration, what is its limiting principle that it cant madate only broccoli be allowed to pass our borders?

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Nothing, in theory.

Edited by WrathOfNederlandsVoetbal, 25 June 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Fez]

Cocomaan, on 25 June 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Much of it was struck down, but the worst part (PAPERS, CITIZEN?) was not.

Only because it wasn't enacted yet.  The majority opinion stated that it could be challenged as discriminatory after enactment.  But proof needs to be provided first; hence it needs to enacted first.

And the other 3 provisions are gone.  Gov. Brewer's an idiot (what else is new?) for claiming this was a victory.

[Memory Lane]

I'm guessing a 5-4 ruling that strikes down PPACA entirely, with the predictable conservative justices plus Kennedy lining up to knock it down. The guy arguing for it in the Supreme Court case a few months ago did a terrible job, so it's possible they won't buy the severability argument.

[Triskele]

Falling Bass, on 25 June 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm guessing a 5-4 ruling that strikes down PPACA entirely, with the predictable conservative justices plus Kennedy lining up to knock it down. The guy arguing for it in the Supreme Court case a few months ago did a terrible job, so it's possible they won't buy the severability argument.

I can see anything happening, but my guess is that Kennedy strikes down the mandate but upholds the rest.  I think there's a chance Roberts will do the same, but I think Alito, Thomas, and Scalia will strike down the whole thing.

I think there's a tiny chance that Roberts will uphold the whole thing and a decent chance that Kennedy will.

[Ser Robin Hill]

It, on 25 June 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Some relevant stuff:



SCOTUS reaffirm federal government power over states on immigration policies, which should set a nice precedent for other lawsuits in various states that were itching to adopt similar discriminatory laws.

So, the only solution is to impeach the Attorney General for non-feasance.

[MercenaryChef]

the discriminatory and racist lawmakers of arizona and the cowardly courts who salute them are welcome to line up and suck my dick.

to be able to pull over a person and inquire about their legal presence in the country insults us all.

[lockesnow]

Not ANY person!  illegal lily-white snowbirds from Canada have no fears from the law, Brown people should be terrified though, their skin is their accuser and the evidence of their guilt.  Michael Jackson esque skin treatments/replacement is recommended.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Since when is it discriminatory to see that immigration laws are enforced?  Why all the sympathy for those whose first act when entering the US was to spit on our laws?  I don't give a damn what their race or nationality or color is.  If they are here illegally, they should be removed.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Right, but meth labs are illegal too, and cops can't just pull over every white trash person on the road for suspicion of running one.

[lupis42]

Deathwalker, on 25 June 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

Since when is it discriminatory to see that immigration laws are enforced?  Why all the sympathy for those whose first act when entering the US was to spit on our laws?  I don't give a damn what their race or nationality or color is.  If they are here illegally, they should be removed.

Let me put it this way: is it hard to understand why people might take issue with the idea of some asshole in jackboots pulling them over and going "papers please"?

[Ser Robin Hill]

WrathOfNederlandsVoetbal, on 25 June 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Right, but meth labs are illegal too, and cops can't just pull over every white trash person on the road for suspicion of running one.

Bad example.  If there is no evidence in the vehicle, it won't work.  Valid ID, on the other hand is verifiable.

lupis42, on 25 June 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

Let me put it this way: is it hard to understand why people might take issue with the idea of some asshole in jackboots pulling them over and going "papers please"?

Your reference to law enforcement representatives as "asshole in jackboots", pretty much guarantees, there is no point in my bothering to discuss the matter with you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Deathwalker,

The point is that having brown skin shouldn't give reasonable suspision for detention.