Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece - Page 2

lurch907 · #11 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

But seriously, take a look at how the voting broke down…

The conservatives dissented.
The liberal opinion was the majority.

Justices Kennedy and Roberts are liberals? Haven't you always said that Kennedy tends to be a swing vote and can go either way? Liberals keep telling us how Roberts is Scalia's lapdog and does what he's told.

This concludes the stereotype portion of our show...

foundit66 · #12 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurch907

Justices Kennedy and Roberts are liberals? Haven't you always said that Kennedy tends to be a swing vote and can go either way? Liberals keep telling us how Roberts is Scalia's lapdog and does what he's told.
This concludes the stereotype portion of our show...

I recommend you find one of those liberals who claims that and take it up with them...
Not sure who that would supposedly be...

Regardless, Kennedy is typically recognized as a swing vote.
Roberts is also typically in the middle third, as opposed to being on an end of the spectrum...

There was no way SCOTUS was going to tell Arizona "you can't investigate..."

Everything else was eliminated, and the reality of what is left is pretty scant, all things considered...

Joe Shoe · #13 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Once again, Joe argues about arguing instead of addressing the issue…

Dude, the difference is that I wasn't ARGUING with you with the observation. If you are going to pull that stuff, at least use it where it applies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

But seriously, take a look at how the voting broke down…

The conservatives dissented.
The liberal opinion was the majority.
*
While “winning” or “losing” depends on where you draw the goal-posts and what you hoped to achieve, it’s obvious that the liberal court judges had the majority…
… not the conservatives.

The problem with that is that not all aspects of what was ruled on were of equal consequence. Those conservatives would no doubt argue that what was left in place was the most critical aspect. And many liberals wanted it ALL thrown out, and they didn't get that. Personally, I think the court ruled about right.

Oftencold · #14 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote

And a partial victory for human rights

[. . .]

That reminds me, I need to get some fertilizer.

Invaders should have few legal rights. In fact, they should be in prison.

Mikeyy · #15 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oftencold

That reminds me, I need to get some fertilizer.

Invaders should have few legal rights. In fact, they should be in prison.

Tell that to the native Americans Ha ha ha

AZRWinger · #16 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

“Allowing its centerpiece”?
I guess I had a different idea on what the “centerpiece” was because I see this ruling effectively neutering the Arizona law.
Another article spells out the components…

High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law - NBC Politics
*
#1* The part remaining.* “the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.”
Reading it literally, there must be a pre-existing reason for the stop.* The stop, in and of itself, cannot be justified by a desire to verify if the person’s immigration status is legally documented.
(I’ll have to look at the ruling / other articles to validate)
*
#2* Struck down:* “One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona”
That seems pretty serious, IMO.
*
(going out of order)
#4* Struck down: “And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government”
That seems a little presumptious of Arizona, but the meaty one is #3 (IMO)
*
#3* Struck down:* “One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;”
So, what we ESSENTIALLY have here is that an officer CAN INVESTIGATE to determine if a person is a legal or illegal immigrant, but they CANNOT ARREST based on their findings…
*
Plus, another thing to consider is whether or not the police CAN DETAIN a person based on wanting to further an investigation into the person’s immigration status…
(THIS is why I see this as a MAJOR neutering)
Without the capability to arrest, they lose any justification for detaining.* A suspect could invoke their fifth amendment right and refuse to answer questions on this.
If required by EXISTING law (and that’s a whole different issue), a person could conceivably give the driver’s license and let that be the end of the discussion.
Any additional questions from the police can be LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY responded to with “Am I being detained officer? / Am I free to go officer?”
And if the person is not required to show a driver’s license, then the conversation just got a little shorter…
*
Of course, the police can (and do) take anything that a person offers up to them.
If a person ignores their fifth amendment right, they can offer up everything they did since birth if they choose.
But to me, the significant thing is that it is the person’s choice to do so, or not to do so.
*
The police are required (by law) to investigate…
… but the main centerpiece that has been neutered is that there is no consequence upon that person if he chooses not to aid the police’s investigation…*

And there is no immediate consequence (in most circumstances) if the person is actually determined to be an “illegal immigrant” on the stop.

There is a lot of selective reporting on SB 1070 in an effort to paint it as racist. The so called arrest anyone on suspicion of being an illegal alien is only authorized if the person is already suspected of a crime grave enough to cause them to be deported. Show me your papers is also grossly distorted. The law allows police to investigate a person's status in the course of investigating another crime but it also specifies acceptable documentation. In a traffic stop situation producing a drivers license from a state requiring proof of legal residency to issue them satisfies the verification requirement in the law. In short immigration status would never come up.

Oftencold · #17 (**permalink**) 06-25-2012, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Tell that to the native Americans Ha ha ha

For your comment to have much merit, we'd have to amend it so that we were referring to long dead people.

The current invasion involves living persons, who need to be punished for their crimes as a deterrent to others considering crossing international borders illegally,

pjohns · #18 (**permalink**) 06-26-2012, 11:13 AM

It seems like a Pyrrhic victory for the state of Arizona, at best.

After all, if the police can demand proof of citizenship, from those detained for other reasons, but the state of Arizona cannot enforce immigration law; and if the federal government refuses to help (and, just yesterday, the Obama administration announced an end to all cooperation with the state of Arizona, in this regard), then it seems like a very empty "victory," indeed...

foundit66 · #19 (**permalink**) 06-26-2012, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe

Dude, the difference is that I wasn't ARGUING with you with the observation.* If you are going to pull that stuff, at least use it where it applies.*

You’ve got a million and one excuses why the standards you apply to others don’t apply to yourself…*

And it’s ironically and easily noted that you are NOW arguing with my observation…

But I’m sure you’ve got another excuse for that as well…
*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe

The problem with that is that not all aspects of what was ruled on were of equal consequence.

That is not a “problem”, as I explicitly pointed out previously.
In fact, I explicitly pointed out that not all aspects of the ruling had equal consequence (if you bothered to pay attention).
*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Shoe

Those conservatives would no doubt argue that what was left in place was the most critical aspect.

Your hypotheticals bore me.* It is stupid to present claims on what you THINK conservatives would say, without even bothering to look at whether or not any are actually saying that.
*
I would love to see any conservative actually argue that, acknowledging what I was talking about.
Additionally, I can point to ONE conservative who DID acknowledge the central point I was addressing.
And pjohns obviously recognizes it as a problem with the ruling…

*

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

There is a lot of…

As you didn’t address any of what I actually said, I am going to return the favor…

Except to point out the below inaccuracy…
*

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The so called arrest anyone on suspicion of being an illegal alien is only authorized if the person is already suspected of a crime grave enough to cause them to be deported.

No.* It is not authorized.
The court clearly stated that the state CANNOT arrest anybody “on suspicion” of being an illegal alien, or even if you absolutely knew that they were an illegal alien.
If Officer LEO 100% knows that Juan is an illegal immigrant, then Officer LEO can do nothing about that except report it to the feds and hope they do their job.
If Juan is already arrested for another crime, the state pursues that but Juan’s immigrant status is not an issue in that crime which is completely separate.
The state cannot decide if Juan should be deported or not…*

*
*

Quote:

Originally Posted by pjohns

It seems like a Pyrrhic victory for the state of Arizona, at best.
After all, if the police can demand proof of citizenship, from those detained for other reasons, but the state of Arizona cannot enforce immigration law; and if the federal government refuses to help (and, just yesterday, the Obama administration announced an end to all cooperation with the state of Arizona, in this regard), then it seems like a very empty "victory," indeed...

See?
Pjohns gets it…
*
The thing that kills me is how often people complain about the feds not doing enough for illegal immigration.
Under the previous Arizona law, Arizona could actually do something.
After the ruling, the best they can do is what they could already previously do before the law was ever implemented.* They can “investigate” just like before the law, and that’s it.* (Obviously the law’s change was to make the investigation mandatory)
After the court ruling, the ACTIONS upon identifying an “illegal” immigrant are still entirely up to the federal government.*

pjohns · #20 (**permalink**) 06-26-2012, 04:23 PM

I think Justice Scalia, in his dissent, said it well, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:

"The [Supreme Court] majority 'deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there.'"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/constitution-judicial-branch/27201-blocking-parts-arizona-law-justices-allow-its-centerpiece.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece - Political Wrinkles	This thread	Refback	08-18-2012 05:06 PM

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
Coyote, foundit66

The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
Spencer Collins