free hit counters

SCOTUS Botches SB 1070 Decision

Looking more like a gaggle of buffoons afraid of the consequences of their actions than the final word in law, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on SB 1070 today. Like muzak on a bad elevator, the decision does very little and helps very few. Politicians are using the decision to belch their rhetoric-the very ones responsible for the emergence of bills like SB 1070, and in the end will use it to continue with business as usual.

The Supreme Court gutted most of the law-even though they conceded that most of the bill mirrored federal law, but mysteriously left in place the provision the peace officers can inquire about immigration status. That part is not part of federal law, and ironically, that is the part they let stand. When they erroneously misapplied Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, their argument was that the power to regulate naturalization was so broad that it would cover even laws that had nothing to do with naturalization. This was a law enforcement bill. If their argument at the time was that a state like Arizona was determining naturalization status by inquiring about it, then they failed epically by letting that part of SB 1070 stand. States routinely enforce federal law-with and without federal assistance, so to make the argument that a state cannot do the exact same thing in this instance is preposterous.

At least Justice Antonin Scalia still has some common sense, and he ripped the decision to pieces. Much better than I ever could.

“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administra¬≠tion’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act,” Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc¬≠ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

Arizona was just planning on enforcing federal law. This watered down decision just means that if Arizona catches an illegal alien, they will be turned over to the feds-assuming the feds will even accept them, and be turned loose. Even worse, if any of those illegals happen to part of Obama’s mini amnesties, they have a get out of jail free card. And Maricopa County and Joe Arpaio can just forget it.

When a single individual, in this case the president, can unilaterally decide to not enforce immigration law, that does not give him either the authority or the right to deny anyone else from enforcing those laws. The Supreme Court says differently, save Justice Scalia. The court has essentially ruled that Obama’s breaking of the law constitutes policy and cannot be overridden. In this case the mighty Supreme Court missed this part of the Constitution all together. Presidential responsibilities is pretty explicit: “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Clearly, Obama is in gross violation of the Constitution, on this and other matters as well. How is it that the Supreme Court basically has ruled that the executive branch breaking the law is supreme, and blocks those that are actually enforcing the law?

We’re right back where we started. Law enforcement can round up as many illegals as they want, but Obama doesn’t have to hold any of them, and the SCOTUS has ruled that’s just fine. We’re on our own, and unfortunately, the guns are pointed at us. I’ve spoken many times of the new America and the concocted demographic shift that is occurring before our eyes. Don’t believe it? This decision has nothing at all to do with the supremacy clause. All the SCOTUS has done is bestow power on a single individual without the authority to do so. They got it wrong, and I suspect they know it’s wrong, but when was the last time truth and justice could be found in a courtroom?

8 comments to SCOTUS Botches SB 1070 Decision

  • I have been of the opinion that the Court was right in striking down portions of the Arizona law. However, after reading some of the dissent opinions, and other commentary, I have changed my mind. This decision was a bad decision, and one I can not understand. Why is it wrong for a state to implement federal law to control their immigration problem? Someone will have to explain that to me.

    • admin

      It’s not wrong LD. I think the term is they “punted” on this one. However, I think their poor decision sets a dangerous precedent and usurps the rights of states to defend their own borders.

  • I expected this to be the ruling and I know we disagree on it but the feds are charged with enforcing immigration law, of course we know they are not doing it so our only recourse will be to throw out all of the people who are not willing to uphold the laws of the land. We just have to hope the next president takes his duty to carry out the laws of the land more seriously than Barack Obama does.

    • admin

      I heard this analogy: The feds have set a minimum wage that all states must match. But, those same states can offer an even higher minimum wage beyond what the feds mandate on their own. How is that different from enforcing immigration law? And then the current scenario. What is the remedy when the feds themselves are the ones violating immigration law? Is there no recourse, no defense mechanism? The Supreme Court has ruled, no, there is not.

  • Excellent post, and you nail it IMO. This makes me nervous about the Obamacare ruling. We may get the mandate deleted, but Obama will decree who knows what. The Conservatives on the court apparently cannot be counted on.

    • admin

      Maybe not, but Scalia’s opinion was a good one, and I’m sure he’ll have another good on on Obamacare. At least one good guy up there. At least on these issues. Hopefully he can swing 5 his way.

  • “However, I think their poor decision sets a dangerous precedent and usurps the rights of states to defend their own borders.”

    I agree! I think SCOTUS has done this coumtry a disservice. i suspect we will get a mixedd bag of nuts in their Obamacare decision as well. But watch the Left complain of judicial activism.

  • Well, they can complain, but it won’t be easy after this decision. In this case, the activism went their way.





Help keep rjjrdq's America alive...






The Original Archives At rjjrdq's America

rjjrdq II Podcast



Archives