Supreme Court signals it's OK with parts of Arizona's immigration law

[jaxx]

By NBC News and msnbc.com staff

Updated 11:54 a.m. ET: The Supreme Court appears ready to uphold part of Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would allow some of the measures currently blocked by lower courts to be enforced.

Based on comments during Wednesday's oral arguments on the case, even some of the court's liberal justices seemed to find no strong objection to the most controversial part of the law, which requires local police to check on the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest.

The state appeared to have a tougher time defending two other provisions of the law that are now blocked -- making it a state crime to have no federal immigration papers and making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to look for work. Neither is currently a federal crime.

The justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are not buying the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check part of SB 1070, the state law aimed at driving illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/0...ration-law

[jaxx]

AdamSerwer ‏ @AdamSerwer
Chief Justice Roberts, before Verrilli even spoke: Just to be clear, this case isn't about racial profiling.

What the hell do they call it then?

[jaxx]

Scalia Likens Undocumented Immigrants To ‘Bank Robbers’
Sahil Kapur April 25, 2012, 2:20 PM

In his fervent defense Wednesday of Arizona’s right to crack down on illegal immigration, Justice Antonin Scalia likened immigration enforcement to crackdowns on bank robbers.

“What’s wrong about the states enforcing federal law?” Scalia said during his aggressive questioning of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. “There is a federal law against robbing federal banks. Can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? I think it is.”

<..> The justice’s hostility toward critics of the Arizona law was on full display Wednesday.

When Verrilli argued that international concerns factor into the federal government’s supremacy over immigration policy, Scalia angrily interrupted, “So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?”

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/...obbers.php

I assume the Roberts Court will hand down it's opinion today since they already have their minds made up.

[jaxx]

Arizona Immigration Law's Supreme Court Hearing Leaves Democrats Less Confident

Posted: 04/25/2012 2:06 pm Updated: 04/25/2012 2:10 pm

WASHINGTON -- Two top Democratic opponents of Arizona immigration law SB 1070 said Wednesday they were less confident that contested provisions of the law would remain blocked after a Supreme Court oral argument.

<..> Grijalva said Section 2 of SB 1070, which requires police to ask for papers during stops if they suspect someone to be in the country illegally, seemed the most likely to be unblocked by the Supreme Court, based on the intense questioning by the justices. A federal court blocked that section of the immigration law, as well as three others, in a decision upheld by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in April 2011. The law was signed in 2010 by Gov. Jan Brewer ®, but those provisions have not gone into effect.

<..> "If you were there to see the sarcasm dripping from [Justice Antonin] Scalia's mouth as he spoke -- I thought they were on the Republican bench on the Judiciary Committee," he said, referring to the House committee with immigration hardliners Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.).

<..> "You can't win in this Supreme Court. You better start learning that you better win in the court of public opinion and on election day," Gutierrez said. "That's what these arguments taught me today."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25...1335377184

Wow strong words from Grijalva and Gutierrez. Scalia is a smart ass.

[Brewman_Jax]

No shock that they'd have no problem with the racial-profiling section of the law. There is an estimated 2-5 million illegal immigrants from Europe, I'd be willing to bet that this will not be applied to them.

Selective enforcement of the law is nothing new.