The evisceration of SB1070 by the US Spreme Court

[Dave]

>>This would have been a 6-3 decision if Justice Kagan had not recused herself for working on it in the Justice Department.
>>Consider that three provisions were otright declared unconstitutional and the remaining provision is still open to be struck down (it was not left unscathed) I feel justified in sing the word eviscerated.
>>

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision
Posted: 06/25/2012 10:19 am Updated: 06/25/2012 2:52 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1614067.html

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision. Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.

Monday's decision on "papers please" -- Section 2(B) in S.B. 1070 -- rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization. The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released.

"The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of [Section] 2(B)," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, noting that the law has not yet gone into effect. Because "[t]here is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," the majority chose to allow the law to go forward, but made clear that "[t]his opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."

Indeed, such constitutional suits are already proceeding against Arizona's "papers please" policy. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton heard arguments on whether to certify a class of what could be hundreds of thousands of individuals now trying to bring equal protection, free speech and due process challenges to S.B. 1070.

While Arizona succeeded on Section 2(B), the Supreme Court gave the Obama administration a victory by striking three other challenged provisions as stepping on federal prerogatives. Two of the provisions made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present and to seek employment in Arizona, while a third authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense.

"The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here," Kennedy wrote. "The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each wrote separately to say they would have upheld all four of S.B. 1070's challenged provisions, while Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he would have upheld all but the provision that criminalized an immigrant's failure to register with federal authorities.

Delivering a forceful oral summary of his dissent before a full courtroom, Scalia said that Arizona's own sovereignty as a state makes it "entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws."

In addition, Scalia cited the Obama administration's recent decision to stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants under 30 years old as a policy change that defies the administration's argument that S.B. 1070 eats up the federal government's scarce resources. "The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this [policy change], since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation," said Scalia, referring to the number of undocumented immigrants estimated to benefit from the secretary of homeland security's announcement on June 15.

"The President has said that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the Administration's proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so," said Scalia. "But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Beyond the Grand Canyon State, lawmakers in Utah, Indiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina will be parsing the Supreme Court's decision to see how their Arizona-style immigration statutes will be affected.

Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in Arizona v. United States, presumably because she worked on the case during her tenure as President Barack Obama's first solicitor general.

Erin Mershon contributed to this report.

[Dave]

>>This is dancing around the answers and not giving anything of what he would do.
>>I don't think that Romney can go past the conventions without being more specific.
>>Already, "he's a bad president" is getting trashed by various reporters and independent bloggers.
>>
>>

Mitt Romney: Arizona Immigration Law 'Underscores The Need' For President To Act
Posted: 06/25/2012 12:39 pm Updated: 06/25/2012 6:10 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...p_ref=politics

WASHINGTON -- Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney expressed disappointment Monday with the Supreme Court's ruling on an Arizona immigration law, saying more latitude, not less, should be given to the states.

After he and his staff repeatedly dodged questions on his thoughts on the opinion, Romney finally gave a more specific comment when speaking with reporters on Monday afternoon, according to a pool report.

The Supreme Court ruled earlier in the day that key provisions of Arizona immigration law SB 1070 were unconstitutional, but upheld one of the most controversial elements of the law.

"Now you probably heard today there was a Supreme Court decision relating to immigration and, you know, given the failure of the immigration policy in this country, I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less," Romney said in Arizona, according to the pool report. "And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration laws."

Romney said that the ruling could give states less authority to enforce immigration law under current federal policy.

He spent more time, though, talking about why the case over SB 1070 showed the president had failed to lead on immigration. Those comments echoed a statement earlier in the day, when he said the decision underscored "the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy."

Romney has mostly attempted to stay away from the law. He said ahead of the primary in Arizona that the state should be a model for the nation on immigration enforcement, but was referring to a separate law regarding employment verification of legal status.

Still, Romney previously aligned himself somewhat with Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the main architects of SB 1070, and said he supports self-deportation, the idea of making it difficult for undocumented immigrants to live in the United States until they decide to leave. That philosophy is similar to the one behind SB 1070.

Romney has said repeatedly he would drop lawsuits against Arizona and other states with similar legislation "on day one" of his presidency.

More recently, Romney has backed off on tough immigration enforcement talk. Last week, before a crowd of Latino elected officials, he called for Congress to act in a bipartisan fashion on immigration reform. He also pointed out that Obama promised to push for immigration reform during his first year in office and didn't do so. Both messages were repeated in Romney's statement Monday.

"This represents yet another broken promise by this President," he said. "I believe that each state has the duty -- and the right -- to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting."

The Republican National Committee issued a similarly vague statement, also without any specific mention of SB 1070 or the provisions involved in the ruling.

"Once again we are reminded that President Obama has failed to keep his promise on immigration reform. In the absence of presidential leadership, states have acted on their own to serve their people and enforce the law, but the issue cannot fully be resolved with a president unwilling to keep his promises," RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said. "This decision makes that job even more difficult, and it leaves Americans waiting for a plan the president promised to deliver years ago."

Romney's message that the Supreme Court's ruling showed the need for immigration reform wasn't so different from that of the Democrats: most reactions from Capitol Hill emphasized that Congress should fix immigration law, although with disagreements on how to do so.

Romney is not expected to give any further response to the decision, at least for today, New York Times reporter Ashley Parker tweeted.

UPDATE: The Romney campaign continued to be evasive -- impressively so -- later in the day when asked about the former governor's view on SB 1070. Romney spokesman Rick Gorka stuck to the script consistently, refusing at many points to give an answer, when asked 20 questions about the candidate's position on the law.

Reporters asked whether Romney supports the law, what he thinks about the sections ruled unconstitutional and if he disagrees with the Supreme Court on its decision, according to a full transcript of the questioning from Politico's Ginger Gibson.

Gorka responded to numerous questions by saying Romney supports states' rights -- a far cry from saying anything about what Arizona actually did. A reporter followed up by pointing out that the law has specific provisions that people want to know if Romney supports. Gorka wouldn't say.

They also asked whether Romney has a position on the law at all, to which Gorka responded that Romney has his own immigration policy. "This debate is sprung from the president failing to address this issue, so each state is left and has the power to draft and enact their own immigration policy," Gorka said when asked the question again.

An excerpt of the reports' questions to Gorka, via Politico:

QUESTION: What is his position on the actual law in Arizona?

GORKA: "Again, each state has the right within the Constitution to craft their own immigration laws since the federal government has failed."

QUESTION: But does he think about the law in Arizona? You're just talking about the states' right to have a law but you're not giving any position on the actual law.

GORKA: "Ultimately this debate comes back down to the federal government and the president failing to address this. If the president followed through on his campaign promise to address illegal immigration in the first year, this debate wouldn't be necessary."

...

QUESTION: Can states do anything, even if it defies the Constitution?

GORKA: "That's not what I was saying."

QUESTION: But tell me where the distinction is.

GORKA: "The bottom line, the fundamental problem of this debate is that the president has failed to enact a policy, has failed to address this, has failed to live up to his campaign promise again and again and again. This stems from states having to deal with an issue like illegal immigration, and come up with a policy that actually works for them."

This is a developing story and will be updated.