Supreme Court on Aiz immigration law.

[cutthemdown]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17849646


The state of Arizona wants the Supreme Court to find as constitutional four sections of its 2010 law that were blocked by lower courts.

These include the requirement that police verify the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested for another violation if they have "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the US illegally.
Paul Clement argues for Arizona Paul Clement, who argued for Arizona, appeared to get a sympathetic reception

The state's lawyer, Paul Clement, appeared to gain a sympathetic hearing on this from the conservative-dominated court.

He pressed the case that Arizona "bears a disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration" and that far from challenging federal law, Arizona was merely enforcing it, where the government had failed.

At one point, Chief Justice John Roberts exclaimed: "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not."

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an appointee of President Obama, told Mr Verilli of his argument: "You can see it's not selling very well."

If the justices indicated that they would uphold this part of Arizona's law, it was less clear how they would vote on the provisions which make it a state crime not to produce registration documents upon request or to seek work if in the US illegally.

Last year the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona law allowing officials to revoke the licenses of businesses employing illegal immigrants.

Eight justices heard this case. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she was a lawyer in the Obama administration before President Obama appointed her to the Supreme Court.

A decision on this law is expected in June, along with one on whether President Obama's controversial healthcare law can stand. As with that, this ruling has the potential to affect the political landscape in the election year.

Mr Obama has been courting Latino voters, a significant part in the bloc that elected him president in 2008. There are an estimated twelve million of them and many live in western swing states. In Arizona, Latinos could put the state into play for the Democrats for the first time since 1996.




Looks like the court may side with Arizona on this one.

[peacepipe]

more likely they'll uphold parts of it and strike down other parts of it.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

more likely they'll uphold parts of it and strike down other parts of it.

With Kagan recused is ****s up the balance though. I think the big one, can police check someones immigration status is going through. That is the one that will make illegals not want to be in Ariz. The one about making it a crime to look for work if your illegal is also in play. IMO the Supreme Court about to give Obummer a big **** you right before his election. Not saying it will hurt him. Hell it could even help him. Just saying I think they strike the mandate out, and then uphold big parts of the immigration law. Like you said maybe not all of it, but it's looking like a possibility.

[Smiling Assassin27]

If Obama's lawyer goes 0-2 on this and Obamacare, he's gonna be relegated to Michelle's lunch program duty.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

If Obama's lawyer goes 0-2 on this and Obamacare, he's gonna be relegated to Michelle's lunch program duty.

It's hard to polish a turd.

[cutthemdown]

Sucks how they make us wait so long for the decisions. Right now them and probably some trusted clerks already know how they voted on healthcare.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

It's hard to polish a turd.

If Michelle is trying to put those in kids lunches, I think she has finally gone too far-- recycling is good and all, but geesh...