I'm seeing this
decision described some places as one supporting "key" provisions of the state law, but as far as I can tell, the Supreme Court found that the strongest portions of it were impermissible invasions of federal prerogatives by state law. The police can still check the immigration status of someone they're detaining on other grounds, but they can't do much about it -- that's still left to the feds, who have decided not to do anything about it.
Justice Scalia, in his dissent (to, apparently, a 5-3 decision, with Justice Kagan having recused herself), had the right of it:
ReplyDeleteArizona has moved to protect its sovereignty -- not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.
As did Justice Thomas, for a different, narrower, reason:
I agree with Justice Scalia that federal immigration law does not preempt any of the challenged provisions of SB 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the 'ordinary meaning' of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.
And Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority has revealed an appalling mindset for an American judge: Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations.
This is a domestic law, and a domestic concern. Foreign opinion has no bearing. But this Progressive administration gave their view of American sovereignty when it encouraged 11 foreign nations to join the suit at the Appellate level.
The struggle never ends.
Eric Hines
And this, boys and girls, is yet another example of why getting out to vote for POTUS matters even when your ideal candidate is not in the race. Le POTUS picks the Justice who fills vacancies in Le SCOTUS.
ReplyDeleteOriginalists are sorely needed, not those of Wise Duplicitous category who are concerned with being good revisionists or internationalists.
*spit*
Perhaps we ought to consider ourselves lucky that they at least mostly agreed that it's okay for Arizona to check status of those detained.
ReplyDeleteBut, yeah, I was hoping for more.
I was hoping for more.
ReplyDeleteAs a man once said, that's what elections are for.
This is a judicial failure that's easily corrected legislatively. An open question is whether the Republicans, were they to take all three elective sections, are up to the task.
Even their failure, though, will be better than the present course.
Eric Hines
"Perhaps we ought to consider ourselves lucky that they at least mostly agreed that it's okay for Arizona to check status of those detained.
ReplyDelete"
As I understand the whole mess, SCOTUS prohibits Az from enforcing Federal Immigration law. While it's true that the Federal law was used as a template to construct/enact a state/Az law. A law Arizona believes is needed to bring the plague of crime and costs associated with the Fed's failure to control the border under control. The Federal gub'ment can not allow the State or The People to usurp Federal power granted via the Constitution. Most will understand that after the blood pressure subsides.
However, within hours
DHS suspends existing agreements with Arizona WRT enforcing immigration law.
Lawlessness in the Federal Government surely surprises me... How about anyone else? Meanwhile Arizona and her citizens are three sheets in the wind WRT the crimes and costs associated with the flood of illegal migrants into and through their state.
We are either a nation of laws, equally applied, or not. Continue to tweak the collective nose of the citizenry with institutionalized lawlessness and I'm of the opinion that eventually it will provoke a test of, whats the notion, oh yes, consent. Maybe not enough to reach critical mass, but then again...
To continue to consent to obey all laws when so *$#@!^+ many others, including those in the gub'ment, scoff at and ignore those laws with which they do not agree, even though they have sworn upon their oath to uphold the law goes against the nature of humans and the notion of right as opposed to wrong.
"This is a judicial failure that's easily corrected legislatively."
To which I will write both Senators and my Congressman, when I've sufficiently cooled off and collected my thoughts such that the bile and profanity have evaporated. However, easily? That we will see any real change is something my increasingly cynical outlook doubts. Easy requires an informed and fired up electorate and correspondingly resolute Statesmen in the Legislature.
Easy requires an informed and fired up electorate and correspondingly resolute Statesmen in the Legislature.
ReplyDeleteThe fired up involvement will be necessary for several election cycles because resolute Statesmen will only occur when we've successively fired those who don't agree to do what we've instructed them to do.
That much is on us.
Eric Hines
"That much is on us.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
12:49 PM"
Indeed it is.
So, then - let Arizona refer thousands of people to the Feds. Let the Feds refuse to process them. And then let the State of Arizona loudly proclaim "We have referred 20,000 illegal aliens to the Federal Government in the last 5 months and they let them all go." See how that plays in November.
ReplyDeleteThe left was all up in arms about President Bush essentially refusing to enforce laws that were passed by Congress. They were equally all up in arms about how Obamacare should be upheld because it was passed by a democratic majority. But when their man does the same thing to immigration laws that were equally passed by democratic majorities they are silent. Hypocrites.
...when their man does the same thing to immigration laws....
ReplyDeleteTheir man has also set another ugly precedent, in the evil Bush's GWOT (a precedent with which I have decidedly mixed views), albeit one which has no place here:
Stop taking prisoners.
Eric Hines
"So, then - let Arizona refer thousands of people to the Feds. Let the Feds refuse to process them. And then let the State of Arizona loudly proclaim "We have referred 20,000 illegal aliens to the Federal Government in the last 5 months and they let them all go." See how that plays in November."
ReplyDeleteIn another age I would agree with you Ron, but that strategy relies on who keeps track of the numbers and how, plus who gets the loudest, most persuasive message out to those who do not pay the closest attention.
As this piece printed in the Texas Tribune a short while back illustrates, figures lie, and liars figure. It would seem we have a bumper crop of both in the hallowed halls hainted by the Federales.
What never ceases to amaze me is that in addition to all the other cost to society caused by unchecked illegal migrants slinking into our nation, the illegal migrant worker hurts the employment chances and pay scale of the lower skilled American. That would be a hard point to defend, if the argument were ever made to the public.
Call me a nativist, relic, or my favorite, a patriot, but I believe that charity ought to begin at home. Especially in this economy. Ah well, what was said earlier about resolute Statesmen?
"Stop taking prisoners."
Yet another unintended? but certainly not unforeseen consequence of extending the GC to cover illegal combatants as though they were legal combatants. Not to mention the
scrapping of military tribunals as the proper venue for trying illegal combatants and instead hauling their carcasses into civilian U.S. courts. There are many other things I could dredge up... Instead, I'd simply remind all the bleeding hearts, have a care for what you wish.
Yet another unintended? but certainly not unforeseen consequence of extending the GC to cover illegal combatants as though they were legal combatants.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how the refusal to take prisoners in this case conflicts with the Geneva Conventions. They're illegal combatants. Their rights if caught on the battlefield, under the GC, is a bullet. In fact, back during GWB's administration, a friend of mine who leans left, agreed with me that we OUGHT to do a quick interrogation and execute them. His objection was to indefinite detention.
Now, I DOUBT Obama would state publicly that he was not accepting prisoners, because the international community would throw a fit. But it IS the only other option once you take detention off the table.
I don't particularly see it as a bug. Rather it's a feature. Now, I DO wish they could get some actionable intel out of them first, but I'm not one to let "perfect" be the enemy of "good enough."
"They're illegal combatants."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Nonetheless, the big push this past decade has been to include non-signatory, unlawful combatants into the category defined in Article 4 of GC III and do away with any mean old tribunal test of status as defined in Article 5. Even though the unlawful combatants and their leadership do not observe the articles.
"I don't particularly see it as a bug. Rather it's a feature. Now, I DO wish they could get some actionable intel out of them first,"...
Agreed on the interrogation. Every little bit can potentially be a missing piece of a puzzle critical to the effort.
As to the nature of a take no prisoners as a means of conducting the GWOT, be it bug or feature. Obviously air strikes, to include drone strikes can not take prisoners, so in the context of an air war it is a feature.
On the ground, where our troops and Marines operate, I'm of the opinion that a theater wide decision to take no prisoners and the infamous action at Malmady, Belgium in January of 1945 become too similar in nature. At least that is too similar for my tastes, and I would venture, that of the average grunt/officer.
That said, I'm a big fan of not introducing our ground forces into a theater when bombing enemy targets into the stone age is a legitimate and effective alternative.
I hope this fleshed out my previous comment on the point Mr. Hines raised WRT THE WON's conduct of the GWOT, not to mention the now muted response of those who were screaming from the rooftops to give GC protections and civilian criminal trials to the unlawful combatants when the Shrub had the helm.