2012 Presidential race

[RedskinsDave]

Yes, there is no liberal media.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Yes, there is no liberal media.

Take it up with Bill Kristol. To this specific topic, I'd love to know how its "biased" to ask a candidate for national office what they read? Or are they supposed to spike that video?

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Take it up with Bill Kristol. To this specific topic, I'd love to know how its "biased" to ask a candidate for national office what they read? Or are they supposed to spike that video?

You're the one who thought the quote was relevant.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

You're the one who thought the quote was relevant.

I expected something more then a non-answer. Silly me lol.

[RedskinsDave]

To what? Something I don't think is relevant?

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

To what? Something I don't think is relevant?

Smell Sign. Nose Army.

[Ibleedburgundy]

The problem with Scalia is his judicial philosophy amounts to a political vote. Even the Republicans at CATO have acknowledged that his vote on the healthcare bill will likely hinge on what he himself views as necessary and proper legislation in reaction to the healthcare problem.

In the case of the immigration law he basically says he thinks Arizona has a right to act - not due to any constitutional authority - but because Scalia himself disagrees with the way the Federal Government has handled immigration:

Originally Posted by Justice Scalia

But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind

So the enumerated powers change based on whether or not you happen to agree with current policy. Another solution might be for congress to stop being so damn disfunctional and compromise a little bit, but that solution doesn't flow with Scalia's polilitical agenda.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Ibleedburgundy

The problem with Scalia is his judicial philosophy amounts to a political vote. Even the Republicans at CATO have acknowledged that his vote on the healthcare bill will likely hinge on what he himself views as necessary and proper legislation in reaction to the healthcare problem.

In the case of the immigration law he basically says he thinks Arizona has a right to act - not due to any constitutional authority - but because Scalia himself disagrees with the way the Federal Government has handled immigration:


So the enumerated powers change based on whether or not you happen to agree with current policy. Another solution might be for congress to stop being so damn disfunctional and compromise a little bit, but that solution doesn't flow with Scalia's polilitical agenda.

I understand what Scalia is trying to say with that point, but how he said it and slapping on a "states wouldn't have agreed to join the union if they knew about this possibly happening" comment made it come off as partisan.

[RedskinsDave]

I don't see the issue with the states enforcing federal law that the feds can't or won't enforce. If they made a law in contradiction to federal statutes, that is one thing. Picking up the slack isn't stepping on toes.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I don't see the issue with the states enforcing federal law that the feds can't or won't enforce. If they made a law in contradiction to federal statutes, that is one thing. Picking up the slack isn't stepping on toes.

Thats not the issue here. The court allowed Arizona to continue to check to see if a person stopped by the police was an illegal immigrant(if they had a reasonable suspicion and as long as they don't target Latinos, which is round 2 in federal court/SCOTUS on this). The rest is traipsing into the fed's role with immigration--nevermind the 4th amendment issues of warrantless arrests of suspected illegals. If this was as simple as "Arizona thought that the feds were slacking off" they could legally detain people who are documented illegals(err..undocumented) in Arizona jails and turn them over to the Feds for processing. Then the Feds have to deal with the illegals one way or the other. Thats not the issue, Arizona disagreed with federal policy for real and imagined issues. Thats not enough to trump the Supremacy clause.

[RedskinsDave]

I was referring to this comment:

But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind

[Keino]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

I understand what Scalia is trying to say with that point, but how he said it and slapping on a "states wouldn't have agreed to join the union if they knew about this possibly happening" comment made it come off as partisan.

That and commenting on a piece of the debate that had nothing to do with the matters before the Court.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I was referring to this comment:

According to 5 justices, immigration decisions are the purview of the Feds to enforce/not enforce. Warrantless arrests of suspected illegals aren't allowed in any event. Arizona, whether they like it or not, can't prosecute for what are federal crimes even if the Feds aren't interested in enforcement.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I don't see the issue with the states enforcing federal law that the feds can't or won't enforce. If they made a law in contradiction to federal statutes, that is one thing. Picking up the slack isn't stepping on toes.

The Arizona law was in conflict with Federal law:

Then the Court moved on to Section 5(c) of the Arizona law -- a provision that created a new state misdemeanor for "an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor." Justice Kennedy found this provision preempted by federal law even more clearly than Section 3. Basing his conclusion upon the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, a Reagan era federal statute, Justice Kennedy wrote:

The legislative background of IRCA underscores the fact that Congress made a deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment. A commission established by Congress to study immigration policy and to make recommendations concluded these penalties would be "unnecessary and unworkable." (citations omitted)
Because Section 5(c) of Arizona's law directly conflicted with that federal judgment, Justice Kennedy wrote, the state law had to give way to the "careful balance" the Congress had struck.

More at the link. Very concise article by the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...ration/258932/

[RedskinsDave]

I am aware they said the new laws conflicted with federal law but I don't see the issue with a state enforcing federal laws that the Feds won't enforce. That's where I agree with Scalia.