Reply With QuoteDo you even have to ask that question??Originally Posted by C.Puffs
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...supreme-court/Who are they pandering to hmmmm?
Senate Dems pushing bill to block Arizona immigration law if Supreme Court upholds it
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...supreme-court/
"Senate Democrats are pushing new legislation aimed at nullifying Arizona's controversial immigration law -- just in case the Supreme Court, which hears the case Wednesday, upholds the policy.
The proposal, announced Tuesday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House. But it marks the latest preemptive challenge by Democrats to a high-stakes Supreme Court decision. "
Gotta love these loathsome sacks who would fight against upholding the law. Who are they pandering to hmmmm?
Do you even have to ask that question??http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...supreme-court/Who are they pandering to hmmmm?
In before Ordie.....
Rhetorical, question is rhetorical.
Democrats are desperate for new voters!http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...supreme-court/
"Senate Democrats are pushing new legislation aimed at nullifying Arizona's controversial immigration law -- just in case the Supreme Court, which hears the case Wednesday, upholds the policy.
The proposal, announced Tuesday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House. But it marks the latest preemptive challenge by Democrats to a high-stakes Supreme Court decision. "
Gotta love these loathsome sacks who would fight against upholding the law. Who are they pandering to hmmmm?
Since the Repubs control the House, good luck with that, Chuckie.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the purpose of the 10th Amendment to prevent something like this from happening?
No, exactly the opposite. The Tenth Amendment is a limitation on the federal government saying that is may not take on any additional powers not specifically granted to it in the Constitution. It empowers the states instead of limiting them. Obviously, that amendment and the enumerated powers doctrine it represents has been thrown on the trash heap by the federal courts long ago.
The argument for the Arizona law is that states have the right to protect their own borders where the fedgov fails to fulfill its responsibility to carry out that task. The SCotUS will make its ruling on that matter know, probably sometime in mid to late June.
It's difficult to imagine the SCotUS will rule that the states are SOL if the Fed doesn't do it's job.
Supreme Court signals support for Arizona immigration law provision
"The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it might uphold a key element of Arizona's immigration law, as justices across the board suggested the state has a serious problem on its hands and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.
The justices appeared to ready to allow a provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.
The justices strongly suggested Wednesday they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn't think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "
Good. If the Fed won't do it, at least let the states.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...supreme-court/
^^ saw that and am pleased.
Do I read this correctly - Sonia Sotomayor (Obama's appointee) is turning against the king?
Another issue that makes clear to me, that this administration is an abject failure and those in office need to be replaced. November 2012 here we come!
The decision will not be released until this summer. If it's a 4-4 split then the lower court ruling stands.
This move is more political than anything else. It's to pin down members voting record before the general elections. It may or may not affect key redrawn congressional districts.
On a related matter, the SCOTUS decisions (Health care, immigration) may put Romney in an uncomfortable position.
One having to debate against his own health care plan. Two trying to placate anti- immigration reform conservatives while trying to woo Hispanic voters.
What was interesting in the hearings was separating the profiling issues. And focus on state and federal jurisdictional issues.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...nistration.php
A Bad Day In Court for the Obama Administration
"Some years ago, I worked on a big case in Alaska and spent a lot of time there. At that time, the local bar was buzzing about a lawyer who had a really bad day in court: he was kicked to death by a moose in the parking lot of the federal courthouse in Anchorage. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t have that bad a day today in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Arizona’s immigration law is invalid by virtue of federal pre-emption, but he was kicked about a good bit by the justices.
On Twitter, Byron York asked: “Question for legal types: Is Donald Verrilli bad at his job or just burdened by having to defend the indefensible?” You can read the entire argument here and draw your own conclusions, but in my opinion, the problem was not with Verrilli but rather with the quality of the arguments that he was required to make by his client, the Obama administration."
"JUSTICE SCALIA: So we have to — we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Your Honor, but what — no, Your Honor, I’m not saying that –
JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounded like what you were saying."
Posting Permissions
