Quantcast

Was the Supreme Court's Decision on Arizona's Immigration Law Appropriate or Unjust?

News 2012/06/25 20:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Supreme Court has finally come to a decision concerning Arizona's controversial immigration laws, put into effect in 2010. They struck down most aspects of the law, chiefly those dealing with how illegal immigrants are punished. However, the Court upheld the most controversial part of law -- the part that requires officers to check immigration status at lawful stops under reasonable suspicion.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." Do you think the Supreme Court handled the case appropriately? Or did it use its power unfairly?


Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Lord Emperor of Dune 2012/06/25 21:12:01
    Appropriate
    Lord Emperor of Dune
    +21
    It's appropriate that they check, but unjust that they aren't just dumped back out into the desert. Every dollar we spend mollycoddling illegals is a dollar that could be spent on an American in need. Why don't we treat illegals like they are illegal?

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kathy S l 2012/06/28 01:25:49
    Kathy S
    +2
    We are always giving money and running over to other countries to save them and we can't even keep the fence up at the border . Its just stupid when you think about it
  • Kris l 2012/06/28 17:34:23
    Kris
    The ONLY thing that has been harming our country are rich, fascist, corporations, bankers, the extremist right-wingers, corrupted house republicans and their endless destructive power against the middle-class Americans are the ones to be focusing on getting rid of!
  • l Kris 2012/06/29 12:35:57
    l
    We are still suffering the financial effects of 9/11! This will continue for a very long time!
  • TimothyBrianFoley 2012/06/27 16:32:58
    Unjust
    TimothyBrianFoley
    Encourages racial profiling against hispanics now they are not welcomed in arizona they will go to california where they feel safe
  • rebecca... Timothy... 2012/06/28 14:53:26
    rebeccasrevenge
    Yes and that is why Southern California should be renamed Really New Mexico
  • warkitten rebecca... 2012/07/02 22:49:00
    warkitten
    +1
    Let's just absorb their the country since we've already absorbed half of its population .oust their president and just start building and creating jobs over there....let's expand...yeah..
  • WOODMAN34 warkitten 2012/07/13 16:34:26
    WOODMAN34
    Souuns good to me, When do we start?
  • warkitten Timothy... 2012/07/02 22:45:52
    warkitten
    Great! then California will finally collapse into the ocean and sink with all the illegals....oh and fake celebrities who haven't a clue what is going on in the country....woo hoo...let's do this..start takin a hike
  • WOODMAN34 warkitten 2012/07/13 16:33:35
    WOODMAN34
    +1
    Lets just hope that when Calf. drops off that New York will drop off to help balance the country. Then all we will need to do will be just to clean up DC.
  • Bunk11 2012/06/27 16:26:22
    Unjust
    Bunk11
    +2
    If the federal government refuses to enforce its laws, the states must be permitted to do so. The Supreme Court should remember that states predate the federal government and retain inherent sovereign powers, except those specifically delegated to the federal government.
  • V~POTL~PWCM~JLA 2012/06/27 15:17:52
    Unjust
    V~POTL~PWCM~JLA
    +3
    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."

    Although the case in question is the Arizona immigration law, the real issue is the federal government's deliberate non-enforcement of its own laws.

    As Kennedy says, "...the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law." That would make sense -- if the federal government was actually enforcing the law. What the SCOTUS does not address (at least not in this case) is the concept of the federal government undermining federal law. If the federal government abandons its duties, what happens then?
  • irish 2012/06/27 14:41:23
    Unjust
    irish
    what happened to protecting the rights of the people?
  • Kris irish 2012/06/28 17:36:35
    Kris
    Immigrants ARE people.
  • irish Kris 2012/06/28 18:51:03
    irish
    the people of this country?
  • WOODMAN34 2012/06/27 14:29:51
    Appropriate
    WOODMAN34
    Hay people at least Jan is trying to something about the problem that is crippling this country now. We need to stop the flow of illegals coming into this country now and remove the ones that are here, At least she has put Obama in a situation where if he doesn't do more to help relive the problem he will not be there long. The people of this country is getting fed up with the government as it is now.
  • jackola... WOODMAN34 2012/06/27 16:31:25
    jackolantyrn356
    To even dream of protecting the rights of the people Obama or what ever his name is must go. And we must get rid of that Marxist woman who reads Mao's Little Red Book for inspiration.
  • ronbo51 2012/06/27 13:51:03
    Appropriate
    ronbo51
    states rights are justified.
    but i see a storm cloud moving in on this subject if the Obozo One gets re-elected!!!!
    its till broken gang. need to stop the influx of illegals for the dems program of new illegal voters.
  • Michael Maxson Sr. 2012/06/27 13:45:19
    Unjust
    Michael Maxson Sr.
    +2
    Do I smell another civil war as the Russians predict will happen?
  • prosper... Michael... 2012/06/27 21:51:45
    prosperhappily
    Sadly, I do anticipate that there will be some major disruption in the near future. I don't know what form it will take. But, I do expect that we will see major American vs American violence.

    I hope I'm wrong.
  • jimrthy... prosper... 2012/06/28 13:04:08
    jimrthy BN-0
    I'm *really* hoping we can avoid that.

    If it happens, it'll make the Civil War look like a cakewalk.

    But I just don't see people staying willing to keep going the direction America seems intent on now.
  • prosper... jimrthy... 2012/06/28 14:10:10
    prosperhappily
    What can I say but that I agree 100%. I don't want that to happen.
  • Magnus ... Michael... 2012/06/27 23:24:02
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    They'd just love that... pick us off with their buddies China and Iran while we're in crisis.

    But yes, I think it will happen. I think if it does not, we are all screwed.
  • Evan 2012/06/27 13:27:48
    Unjust
    Evan
    +2
    The bought-and-paid-for black- robed idiots in their ivory towers don't realize the FEDS are not doing their job, so the States are going to have to. Trouble is, up in their ivory towers they are not affected by the inundation and exploitation being perpetrated by the illegals. They abused their power, and will one day regret that NO state in the Union has rights, thanks to them. Jan Brewer tried.
  • Christopher Kirchen 2012/06/27 12:28:38
    Unjust
    Christopher Kirchen
    +1
    America's immigration policy MUST be as stringent as possible. We have too much riffraff here as it is.
  • Bilingual required sucks 2012/06/27 11:50:10
    Appropriate
    Bilingual required sucks
    +4
    States are not allowed to make immigration law. That is reserved for the Federal Government. Jan Brewer got her ass handed to her and she deserved it.
  • l Bilingu... 2012/06/27 17:23:01
    l
    How would you handle the situation if you were Governor? Just asking!
  • Bilingu... l 2012/06/27 19:57:26 (edited)
    Bilingual required sucks
    +2
    I would let the Federal government do their job, instead of making an ass out of myself by overstepping my authority as Governor and making up immigration law.
  • Magnus ... Bilingu... 2012/06/27 23:18:21 (edited)
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Have we read the same Constitution? I really doubt it...

    Article 1, Section 8 - POWERS OF CONGRESS. Deals with Naturalization, not the same as border enforcement at all.

    Article 4, Section 4 - REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Deals with the Federal Government being OBLIGATED to protect each of the several states from INVASION.

    Amendment 10 STATES RIGHTS.

    You should reference them. Arizona and Jan Brewer were very much within their Sovereign State RIGHTS.

    And FYI, reference also U.S.C. Section 8. Congress already DOES have these laws on the books, how to deal with Foreign National Aliens - and the Fed WON'T adhere and follow them!

    Now this!!!: http://www.washingtontimes.co...
  • Bilingu... Magnus ... 2012/06/28 00:31:35 (edited)
    Bilingual required sucks
    +3
    I don't give a rat's ass what you post, go argue it in front of the Supreme Court that ruled against Arizona, and it's a very RIGHT leaning court too.

    The Washington Times is a rightist neo-con rag, with no more integrity than Breitbart's blog. Doesn't really matter what you post anyway, the high court has spoken.

    And DUH-UH they ruled that way, because if Arizona were allowed to make immigration law, then all states could write their own laws. Then you would have a patchwork of different immigration laws in every state. It's under FEDERAL authority for a reason.

    You also seem to think you've read the Constitution. The Supreme Court and NO ONE ELSE interprets the Constitution. Did you read that part of the Constitution Einstein?

    EDIT: Awwww you lost the debate so you blocked me and ran away, just like a typical conservative jerkoff. If you're a sore loser over a little debate, what on earth are you going to do when Obama wins in November AGAIN...you're a pathetic whiny little b*tch.
  • Magnus ... Bilingu... 2012/06/28 00:35:46
    Magnus ☮ RP ☮ 2012 ☮
    +1
    Oooooo, the Totalitarians have spoken. That's right, keep burying your head in the sand... everything's just fine. You must be a Marxist too. Good riddance.
  • chgo Magnus ... 2012/06/28 03:07:29
    chgo
    +3
    Have we read the same Constitution? I really doubt it.

    The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The Tenth Amendment says only certain things are regulate by the state, . Plus, on several rulings, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law.

    In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941), in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992),the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. ...

    Have we read the same Constitution? I really doubt it.

    The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    The Tenth Amendment says only certain things are regulate by the state, . Plus, on several rulings, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law.

    In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 100 (1941), in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992),the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.

    Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    So, this is a federal issue, not state. Learn how to read.
    (more)
  • Bilingu... chgo 2012/06/28 03:15:42 (edited)
    Bilingual required sucks
    +3
    He's a total loser, he will just block you and run away..... at least he did it to me......the truth to a Republican is like a crucifix to a vampire.
    crucifix vampire
  • chgo Bilingu... 2012/06/28 21:52:48
    chgo
    +1
    lol. facts are indeed meaningless to them, it seems.

    He's right from the looney bin.
  • jimrthy... Bilingu... 2012/06/28 12:45:26
    jimrthy BN-0
    Really?

    Last time I checked, the Constitution does not mention immigration.

    Which means the feds have absolutely no authority here. Except what we allow them to steal from us.
  • Bilingu... jimrthy... 2012/06/28 13:55:59 (edited)
    Bilingual required sucks
    +2
    No Einstein, the Constitution is to be INTERPRETED by the Supreme Court only.

    May I refer you to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    It says all Naturalized Citizens. That means people that were NOT born in the United States, which means IMMIGRATION.
    No state has the right to make immigration policy .......period.

    Anyway the Constitution does mention immigration so you were quite mistaken in that respect.
  • jimrthy... Bilingu... 2012/06/28 14:14:16
    jimrthy BN-0
    Immigration is one step toward Naturalization. Not every immigrant has any interest in becoming a citizen.

    We *each* interpret the Constitution. And decide how long we're going to let the Supreme Court keep getting away with letting the rest of the federal government destroy our freedom and totally ignore the Constitution.

    As long as the evils are sufferable, we will keep suffering them.

    Pretending it isn't evil because some statists in black robes said so is just pathetic.
  • Cap 2012/06/27 05:20:21
    Unjust
    Cap
    +1
    I will go back and reread the court decision, but I don't think it's going to help me much. I have little problem with the principle of law that is supposedly being applied, i.e., that States cannot pass State Laws that intentionally (or probably even unintentionally) frustrate the purposes of federal laws, but the majority decision just didn't adequately explain to me how the State statutory provisions in issue frustrate the federal scheme. Isn't the whole problem here that the federal scheme is being frustrated by lack of enforcement? And, again maybe I'm just thick, but I don't see how SB 1070 could be construed to be so contrary to federal immigration law that it had to be struck down.

    On a somewhat related note, I can't help but express my dismay at SHs who can't write the words "Citizens United" w/o their lips curling in scorn at what they feel is the manifestly unprincipled bias of the majority decision therein, who now turn to many of their SH confreres who were disappointed by the Arizona case and say "Well, the Court has spoken, isn't it great that now we know what the real law is?'
  • EmoKiss:3 2012/06/27 04:36:31
    Appropriate
    EmoKiss:3
    **Unfair**
  • jeane 2012/06/27 04:25:17
    Unjust
    jeane
    +1
    Drop dead Arizona! Can you hear Obama and Co. now?
  • wysiwis 2012/06/27 03:36:09
    Unjust
    wysiwis
    +5
    The whole thing should have passed. States have more rights than the federal government. When the Fed won't do it's job, then the States must do it for them.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 18:08:09

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals