It was a very busy day at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, despite the fact that the health care rulings were not announced.
First, the high court announced that Montana's limits on corporate campaign spending are unconstitutional and violate the Citizens United ruling. The state's Corrupt Practices Act was approved in 1912, after a billionaire bought a U.S. Senate seat, and offered the justices a chance to revisit its odious campaign finance decision. Without even hearing oral arguments, the justices struck down Montana's law in a 5-4 ruling.
Second, in Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, the court majority ruled that a minor can't be sentenced to life without parole. The cases involved robbery and murder cases involving 14 year olds. This, too, was a 5-4 ruling. (Justice Alito felt so strongly about his dissent that he read it aloud, which isn't common.)
And finally, there was a more nuanced ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant law, SB1070, in which the justices (sans Justice Kagan, who did not participate) upheld one part of the law but struck down other sections.
The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government.
The justices struck down three other parts of the law: (1) One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona; (2) 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; (3) And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
It's going to take a little while to sort all of the implications, but at first blush, this looks like a win for the Obama administration, which has fought against the Arizona law.
Justice Scalia announced that he supports every provision of SB1070, and complained about President Obama implementing the goals of the DREAM Act -- a policy that has nothing to do with the case -- reinforcing the worst suspicions about Scalia being a Republican activist in a justice's robe.
Also note, Mitt Romney will be campaigning in Arizona today -- he's described the state's anti-immigrant law as a "model" for the nation -- and will probably be pressed for a reaction to today's announcement. It'll be interesting to see how well he dodges the questions.
The health care ruling(s) will be handed down on Thursday.
Leave a Comment:
Thursday? Same Bat-Time? Or should I say Con-Time since it should be pretty clear that it will be an ideological 5-4 ruling against it.
Kennedy didn't seem sway-able enough and if the justices are getting political enough to complain about policy from the bench, then there's no hope for the foreseeable future.
So the racial profiling (and stopping illegal "looking" people for whatever reason a cop can muster) are totally ok... I see.
Can I guess what the 14 year old boys looked like? What their socio-economical circumstances were? What if Romney's grandson robbed and killed someone when he's 14... will he be arrested for life without parole? OR will there be a chance he can pay his debt to society, learn from the experience, and reform himself? HMMM...
Sometimes it is hard to be eloquent. This is one of those times. Scalia is scum.
need to change the court It is crazy we can not get rid of them
Scalia isn't the only scum on the SC! Judicial activists for life, Lord help US all!
So how long do you think it will be before we can "change the Court?" The Right has been appointing the youngest justices they can for decades now. The most likely seats to come up any time soon are (in approximate order) Ginsberg, Kennedy, Scalia, and Breyer. Barring Obama's appointments, the least right-wing partisan Justices.
Roberts is very, very likely to be Chief Justice for the rest of my life (he's a few years younger than I am and the actuarial tables for justices is heavily skewed towards longevity.)
If Romney takes office in January, there's a very good chance that he will end up appointing someone fresh from Liberty University Law School as Ginsberg's replacement. (Well, maybe not all that fresh. Probably around 40 years old.) There's a respectable chance of also replacing Breyer, for a 7-2 Court.
Add in the nontrivial prospect that Scalia might decide to retire early for the good of the Party and let someone 20 or more years his junior take his place and you have a Court with a bare minimum of five Justices, including the Chief Justice, born since 1948 and quite likely to live long enough to retire strategically during a Republican Administration.
You see, that's what happens when the Court becomes partisan: lifetime tenure, which goes back to 1789, combines with Reagan's introduction of appointing young Justices to ensure a long-term advantage and with the Bush-family introduction of appointing explicitly partisan Justices. The net result has the potential to ensure a totally partisan Court until Republicans lose control of the White House for a minimum of thirty years straight.
Why are they making us wait till thursday to hear the 5 to 4 decision?We all know what it's going to be.No suspense here.
Would you have said before this ruling that the court would rule unanimously that Arizona law enforcement had the right to check immigration status of person detained for other reasons? Because that is what the court decision said today.
I don't think you know...only suspect...
Nope, Rob, I freely admit this decision totally surprised me, as it's sane and rational. This decision basically declares SB1070 null and void. LEOs have always had the right to check the immigration status of those detained for other reasons. SB1070 REQUIRES they check the status if there's reasonable cause to suspect the person is here illegally, but there must be another reason for stopping the person, not just because he/she is breathing while brown.
And once the LEO checks, what's he/she supposed to do with them, since the decision says it's not okay to "to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants"? That must still be handled by the feds.
The best part was that ruling against the section that made it illegal to work or seek work in Arizona. This section also carried a mandatory sentence, which would, of course, be handled by the private prison industry.
SB1070 was never about securing the border, or deporting illegals. It was always about increasing the bottom line for private prisons. Private prison lobbyists are very powerful in Arizona, up to and including an ex-PP lobbyist being a trusted advisor to the governor. (His wife still retains that occupation.)
Haddie, you write:
The best part was that ruling against the section that made it illegal to work or seek work in Arizona. This section also carried a mandatory sentence, which would, of course, be handled by the private prison industry.
SB1070 was never about securing the border, or deporting illegals. It was always about increasing the bottom line for private prisons.
So the way I read that is you don't like the idea of the private prison industry "increasing their bottom line" but it seems OK to you that other industries increase their bottom line by hiring illegals - which most likely means lower pay and benefits than hiring "legals". Not sure if that's your intent, but it reads that way to me.
Gotta milk today's decision for all the political capital they can.
Oh my no, Skip! that is definitely NOT the impression I want to convey!
Arizona already has a separate law making it illegal to hire undocumented workers, even though LEOs within the state don't bother prosecuting the employer under this law. This law is not tied to SB1070 in any way. It's how Sheriff Arpaio can do his infamous 'immigration sweeps,' where he pounces on a business and checks everyone's immigration status. (It's also what has him headed for court under racial profiling charges, abuse of power, etc.)
We need immigration reform, but we need intelligent immigration reform. That seems a long way down the road right now.
OK Haddie, understood. But I do find it interesting that the state does "look the other way" when it comes to enforcing that law (hiring undocumented workers). And more interesting is how this ruling kind of is the same thing. They are allowing the State of Arizona to basically enforce a law on the books that previously had the state and federal government "look the other way". To me with this ruling, along with the Presidents recent announcement of not "enforcing" immigration laws on student aged illegal immigrants is making the whole immigation reform more and more unclear. It seems like enforcement is now a "pick and choose" option of which law(s) to enforce - by both the states and the federal governments.
Scalia is definately an unjust man.
Definitely NOT unbiased or non partisan, as Judges and Justices should be. Of course they all have views, but like a jury member gets asked "would that belief prevent you from deciding based on evidence and the law?".
These originalists are telling us, slavery is OK and women are property. That only property owning males can vote. They are trying to turn the calendar back to 1700's!
I don't see this as a win unless it is qualified as only a partial win because the court as unanimously concluded "federal law did not pre-empt the state's instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain." This sounds like the core of what the Obama administration was fighting against was upheld.
federal law did not pre-empt the state's instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain.
Further reading caused me to change my opinion. It seems the court rejected more than it accepted in the ruling even though the one I mentioned had a higher profile. In retrospect, calling it a victory for President Obama is appropriate IMHO.
Also, sorry for the double quote posting.
If it's Constitutional to require potential employers to check immigration status, it's almost certainly Constitutional to require police to do so with people they detain. Just because it's an immoral law doesn't mean it violates the Constitution. That the ruling on that part was unanimous is a good indicator.
Matt, it's required by law to pay income tax, pay into social security and medicaid, etc., and those things all require a SS#, so that's why employers check immigration. So they can hire someone, they can pay taxes on behalf of that employee.
You don't need to be legally here to drive a car or buy bread at the store. Granted they are here illegally, but immigration status is not needed to live day to day. If an illegal commits a crime, yes, by all means, check them. But the fears of this law have been racial profiling and racists, or simply 'power-tripping' cops making judgement calls on stopping someone just to check them. The potential for unconstitutional profiling is too strong.
Could it be that the decision for the AHCA was 5-4 in favor of the law and the conservative justices are looking to delay the decision in order to sway one more justice to vote against it?
No, even if Kennedy (because, c'mon who else?) voted in favor, they decided last month, they just haven't announced, but I think* the rulings are officially done now.
*What I think and reality can be two totally different things.
As Andy Borowitz posted on Facebook this morning, "Remember, no matter what the Supreme Court justices decide about government healthcare, they'll still have it."
No matter what they decide on legal status of a person in the United States, they justices still have legal residence. You could say this about almost everything they rule on.
Siamesse.cities: Actually, the Court did not hold that "stopping illegal looking people for whatever reason a cop can muster" is "totally ok." To the contrary, the Court specifically held that "Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns." The Court held that it was not yet clear, pending state court litigation, that the language of the Arizona statute on its face would be construed to authorize such unconstitutional detention or whether it would only authorize police to check immigration status during an otherwise lawful and authorized detention. It made clear that even this portion of the law might ultimately be struck down if if it were construed to authorize detentions just to verify immigration status. So, for the most part, this was a victory for the administration and for the good guys.
Nevertheless, check out the Wall Street Journal's hilarious headline, which is even more biased and off-the-mark than usual: "High Court Upholds Part of Arizona Law."
ahhh, well that's something.
They'll still get a while, maybe a year, of bogus checkpoints, seat belt violations, didn't count to three at a stop sign-- that kind of stuff, I think, before they revisit to see if they are just detaining for immigration verification.
"To the contrary, the Court specifically held that "Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns."
Yeah, and Sheriff Joe has never done that, because it might be unconstitutional...
Come on. You'd have to be brain dead to believe that Phoenix cops or Arpaio's deputies don't stop and detain anyone who looks Mexican and check their citizenship status. Arpaio's raids round up everyone in sight with brown skin.
Hold it -- that's been a very hot issue between Phoenix and the County. Phoenix was a strong objector to the mandatory checks in 1070, in part because it's an added expense. In fact, since 1070 doesn't include any funding for detention and immigration detention can last over a year, Phoenix really doesn't want to be doing immigration enforcement at all.
Not everyone in Sheriff Joe's county worships him.
There really shouldn't be any surprise on the rulings and the split on the rulings (5-4). Like it or not, that is the nature of the Supreme Court "beast". Obviously it depends on who is sitting in the Oval office when an vacancy on the court appears. And in most cases a liberal Justice will retire when a liberal President is in office and vice-versa. It really isn't rocket science.
I guess there may be some surprises when a Justice that may be on the fence ideologically and rules against what some people like....but then again maybe ALL the Justices should be on the fence ideologically. :)
It wasn't a 5-4 vote...the parts rejected by the Supreme Court was 5-3 (Kagan recused). Allowing status checks by local law enforcement, in other words their decision in favor of Arizona, was unanimous.
NYTIMES quote:
Point taken RobDon.
they want to arest people that look like a mexican i better not tan and have a straight stach....this mitt guy sounds like hitler and the republicans would vote for him too. signs signs every were signs saying do this don't do that can't you read the signs....it gods world and we are to forgive those how trustpass against us? again democrats prove to be more godly
The 3 parts that was struck down was almost irrelevant. The one that was upheld cunningly mirrors that of the other 3 parts and will be a nightmare for illegal immigrants cuz it pretty much gives cops the right to stop, frisk, verify and deport. I won't be surprise if Arizona will have the lowest illegal immigrant population in the next 5 yrs. This a big win for Jan Brewer and the Repubs.
yes, racial profiling is still intact- not acceptable!!!
They've been doing this for a very long time, now they just won't have any red tape doing it and they don't have to go through all those special channels in order to get more money out of the taxpayers or the Feds. problem solved, SB1070 was just another piece of lesgislature designed to make a few chosen ones rich.
it was a win but not a knock out that will come after they vote against health care ...we realy and win the president again...and some congress seats
What do they DO with an "illegal", after they "catch" one?
It is up to the federal government to detain, deport, or release.
They deport them because they would like for them to seek more legal avenues of citizenship. Which I think is fair as long as it doesn't take a lifetime to do, and if that so-called illegal person is fighting for their life, we have a problem here Houston. When did we start calling other human beings illegal? Are they only illegal in the eyes of the U.S.
Okay, not just snarking. I'm serious. Scalia's increasingly injudicious and indiscreet comments from the bench and in public, his increasing tendency to just pop off with stuff he appears to have read in a "Crazy Uncle" email sourced to World Net Daily, and his abandonment of any pretense of honoring stare decisis have really got me wondering about his mental status. It's the kind of subtle behavior changes that can be the first signs of Alzheimer's, senile dementia or TIA's. Kind of like when old people who've always been sharp dressers just suddenly stop caring about their appearance or uncharacteristically get into nasty arguments with family members.
(Yes, his respect for prior authority has always been pretextual--it's the fact that he used to carefully wrap it under multiple layers of witty and clever, if disingenuous, legal reasoning and now he doesn't even bother that's got me wondering).
An astute observation, sir! Some of us viewed the second term of Ronald Reagan with the same suspicions.
An experience that informs my thoughts here. The difference is that presidents have terms and, in the worst case scenario, we'd have the 25th Amendment (which, granted, makes us the only nation I know of that baked a guaranteed constitutional crisis into a constitutional amendment).
The thought of what would happen if we ever had a justice with dementia, however, is sobering. Lifetime tenure, the ugly fact that even with dementia, that justice's votes would be acceptable to one party or the other for quite a long time.
Well maybe now I don't have to worry much in being profiled by the cops as an illegal immigrant, just being a drug dealer. But seriously, the ruling today by the republican party's supreme court is just to soften the blow for Thursday's ruling against Obama's health care reform.
Was there ever a "suspicion" since he was put on the court that Scalia was NOT a "Republican activist"???
This is the only ruling that could have been tolerated. States must be taught that legislating against Hispanic Americans is wrong, immoral, illegal, and will not be tolerated by a democratic United States government. These anti-immigrant laws are exposing the hateful core of the GOP. Any position that does not involve rounding up every Hispanic in the ol' USA at gunpoint and sending them on the next military transport back to Mexico City is tantamount to "amnesty" in the eyes of the Republican voting base. Throw these laws out.. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Well, it's official. This court is nothing more than five corporate whores wearing robes and pretending they're handing down justice. Scalia makes a really good argument for impeachment of a justice. For him to blatantly weigh into political discourse is nothing short of jaw dropping. He makes no pretense at being a justice, just Republican bag boy. This is the legacy of the Roberts court. Roberts far from calling balls and strikes has now rigged the game.
The three Arizona dissenters should have ridden in on horses and written their dissent with a quill. For all practical purposes it was three votes to return to the Articles of Confederation.
[Sardonic mode on]...Uh huh... One could _almost— begin to understand how some of the more excitable among us are compelled to cancel a ballot--or an appointment--with a bullet, eh? Perhaps if a graphic were produced with rifle targets on 5/9 of the Supreme Court, you know, like for identification purposes? Wait... Someone has done that kind of thing already? I'm sure they must still be in a jail cell, eh? [Sardonic mode off.]
Irony: among the Supreme Court judges, only Scalia has the kind of looks that would be targeted by police were he ever to drive in Arizona. Dark, swarthy, definitely of southern european ancestry, as many Hispanics are...
I think the biggest news here is getting lost. The Supreme Court just overturned a 100 year old law because all of a sudden it doesn't fit with its current understanding that "free speech" as enshrined in the constitution isn't limited to individual human speakers. This is a horribly destructive ruling that will only serve to undermine individual liberty and speech. The majority of americans are NOT in favor of the idea of "corporate personhood" and the only thing keeping that idea afloat is the overwhelming influence corporate money has on Washington. This is by far the most troubling issue that the court has reviewed recently because protecting our individual rights to speech from being steamrolled over by corporate money is one of the fundamental ways in which the federal government can actually act in our best interest.
I just got done writing a similar post, though I wish I had read your post, before I did. In any event, I believe that this is the decision that will eventually bring this country down. Especially since corporate donations are going to be much more effective in turning state, and local governments. Once that's done, states that have been co-opted in this manner will then be able to steamroll constitutional amendments through that would pretty much enshrine their agendas for a very long time, as well as to make reversing these recent SCOTUS decisions irrevocable!
As I posted earlier, think Scott Walker's legislative procedures set loose in a constitutional convention! I think it may happen, folks! Could someone please tell me I'm completely wrong in this? Please?!
So profiling is still OK even if the car is tip top up to date, or a person is sitting, standing or walking in a public place.
What signals the police officer that someone is suspicious in order to "stop" them?
I guess we just have to accept these random "stops" to cast nets. Now when AZ starts complaining about cost of court, jail or deportation of all those people they caught in their net and see them return after being dropped off at the border.
Does AZ do anything to employers of those folks they catch at work?
And Montana is wrong to limit their corporate campaign spending? I thought Montana was to be held in highest regard as a shining example for all to follow?
I guess we just need to start asking for campaign money I.D.'s as in voter I.D.'s these Republicans love. Since these corporations are affecting elections as if they had more than one vote, like those of us breathing people!
I thought the Constitution was for individual rights, now us individuals are being vetoed by corporations and Adelsons and Kochs.
How much does each vote cost? I thought poll taxing was illegal.
This is a joke, Arizona, has been a state for 100 years now. Don't you think if they really wanted a wall built, it would have been built by now. With the border wide open it helps in our number #1 trade import/export agreement with Mexico. Has anyone really checked to see what legitimate trades we have with Mexico, and if there are any in the works?
Bingo.
http://www.youtube.com/alliance4justice