dagblog - Comments for "Obama 'pleased' with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law"

Officer: "show me your

Resistance — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:13:00 +0000

In reply to Arizona immigration ruling

Officer: "show me your papers"

Then what........ an arrest?

No bail, because the perpetrator is a fight risk?

The cost of incarceration the burden of the State?

Knock people off State provided medical care, because the funds will be needed for incarcerations?

I expect that if Obama loses the election, there will be a blanket pardon.

After Bush vs Gore, and the Citizens United position,

this SCOTUS is without a doubt; the most worthless to rely upon, for direction.

Opinion recap: Citizens

artappraiser — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:37:51 +0000

In reply to Other rulings that just came

Opinion recap: Citizens United solidified

By Lyle Denniston , SCOTUS Blog, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:48 pm

Analysis

Leaving no doubt that the Supreme Court has no intention of putting new restraints on political campaign spending, despite the huge outflow of cash this year, a five-Justice majority on Monday seized on a new case from Montana to solidify the controversial ruling two years ago in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Only two potential developments might make a difference in the future: if the Court were persuaded to crack down on secrecy in such spending, or if the Court’s own membership changes. With complete freedom of donors to contribute and to spend, the disclosure of their identities now looms as the next major issue on campaign finance.

Continue reading »

SCOTUS blog: Online

artappraiser — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:33:08 +0000

In reply to Obama 'pleased' with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law

SCOTUS blog:

Online symposium: Supreme Court (mostly) guts S.B. 1070

By Peter Spiro - Guest on Jun 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm

This is the first post in our online symposium on today’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s S.B. 1070. During the next few days, we will be posting a series of essays on the decision by lawyers and scholars in the field.

This is a nominally split decision, but the Court’s opinion in Arizona v. United States is mostly a victory for S.B. 1070’s opponents. Although the Court upheld the “check your papers” provision, it struck down three others that would have had much greater impact on the ground. Justice Kennedy’s opinion validates broad federal authority over immigration, allowing only marginal participation on the part of states. The decision will take a lot of wind out of restrictionist sails at the state level.

Continue reading »

Online symposium: S.B.1070 rides off into the sunset

By Marc L. Miller and Gabriel J. Chin on Jun 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm

This is the second post in our online symposium on today’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s S.B. 1070. During the next few days, we will be posting a series of essays on the decision by lawyers and scholars in the field.

At its core, S.B. 1070 is a use of the state police power and state criminal law to enforce and punish federal immigration violators; at its core this is what a majority of the Supreme Court rejected.

Continue reading »

Arizona immigration ruling

artappraiser — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:26:52 +0000

In reply to Obama 'pleased' with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law

Arizona immigration ruling brings simultaneous joy and disappointment

Supreme court split decision leaves many Latinos and their supporters wondering 'whether this is a victory or the opposite'

By Ed Pilkington, guardian.co.uk, 25 June 201

As the details of the complex supreme court ruling on Arizona's immigration law began to sink in across the state, Arizonans working with Latino communities were divided over whether to rejoice over the provisions of the law that had been struck down or lament the court's approval of the single most contentious aspect of the law.

"We are still trying to come to agreement over whether this is a victory or the opposite," said Daniel Rodriguez, president of the Phoenix-based pro-immigration group Somos America.

Much of the focus of discussion was on section 2b of the Arizona law, the one aspect that has been allowed to stand. Hispanics across the state refer to it pejoratively as the "show me your papers" provision, as it requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they come across who they have "reasonable suspicion" is undocumented [....]

Other rulings that just came

artappraiser — Mon, 25 Jun 2012 19:18:38 +0000

In reply to Obama 'pleased' with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law

Other rulings that just came down:

Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

Washington Post - ‎20 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a plea to revisit its 2-year-old campaign finance decision in the Citizens United case and instead struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.

Court: No automatic life without parole for juveniles

USA TODAY - ‎17 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for state laws to require juveniles convicted of murder to be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

As for health care, they are holding off on until Thursday: Reuters.

dagblog - Comments for "Obama 'pleased' with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law"

Officer: "show me your

Opinion recap: Citizens

Opinion recap: Citizens United solidified

SCOTUS blog: Online

Online symposium: Supreme Court (mostly) guts S.B. 1070

Online symposium: S.B.1070 rides off into the sunset

Arizona immigration ruling

Other rulings that just came

Supreme Court strikes down Montana limits on corporate campaign spending

Court: No automatic life without parole for juveniles