Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece

A partial victory for sovereignty..

The underlying reason for both the blocked and allowed parts of the law hasn't changed...Arizona did this because the federal government REFUSES to do its job...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

And a partial victory for human rights

Actually, I thought the ruling was a good one.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

Yup and that's been true for decades.

If the federal monkeys refuse to do their job of deporting trespassers, the local governments need to. Ms Incompetano, shut the hell up.

The upheld requirement for state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant made my day...

I thought that was reasonable enough.

__________________

DISCLAIMER: Extreme amounts of sarcasm can possibly result in inflammatory situations. Not responsible for keyboard violence, spittle on the monitor, irrational responses mistaken for momentary brilliance, one-sided rages against hypocrisy or individual members or unintended consequences such as poor personal hygiene and bad spelling. Please fasten your seatbelts and put your trays in an upright position.

“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.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

It's funny how both sides are trying to claim victory with this ruling.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

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

*
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.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein