Safe Mode: On
Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Of AZ Immigration Law, Lunatic Gov Brewer Claims Victory

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Monday key parts of an Arizona law that sought to deter illegal immigration, but let stand a controversial provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws.

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "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."

The Supreme Court concluded that the federal government has the power to block the law -- known as SB1070. Yet the court let stand one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

President Barack Obama also expressed concern over the immigration status checks allowed by Monday's ruling, saying they could lead to racial profiling.

"No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," Obama said. "Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the court's decision recognizes."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, meanwhile, declared the ruling a victory for her state, saying the "heart" of the law can now be implemented "in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

However, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday's ruling "essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration.

Provisions struck down included:

-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html

Loading the player ...
Embed CodeSwitch Player
Plays: 603 (Embed: 0)

Added: Jun-25-2012 Occurred On: Jun-25-2012
By: gregsto
In:
Politics
Tags: arizona, immigration, supreme court, jan brewer
Location: Arizona, United States (load item map)
Views: 913 | Comments: 85 | Votes: 2 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Why is Brewer a lunatic? She wants to protect American's rights and the sovereignty of the United States.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (12) | Report

  • A Liberal calling anyone a lunatic is about ironic as you can get.

    For the record, the Court upheld the part everyone cared about but spin away liberal, the truth is no object when you're a leftist

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (9) | Report

  • Gov. Jan Brewer a Lunatic? Why are liberals so mad at her for keeping safe the state and people of Arizona? The border is a dangerous place and the Federal government isn't doing enough to stop illegals and drugs from crossing over.

    Gov. Jan Brewer is a Patriot!

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (9) | Report

  • They threw out all the stuff that was redundant to federal law and kept the one new controversial part. So...I would say AZ won.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (9) | Report

    • @meh88 Actually, you are wrong. None of this was 'redundant' to federal law. It CONFLICTED with federal law and federal powers. The exact opposite of your claim.

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (-7) | Report

    • @gregsto Conflicted? Oh please, do tell us how

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @gregsto dude you are an IDIOT...you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about...he is EXACTLY RIGHT. The ONLY portion they upheld was the new portion Arizona added...YOU LOST, AND MADE YOURSELF LOOK STUPID
      GET OVER IT! LOL!!

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (3) | Report

    • @VikingRapeSquad REALLY? Then you will have no problem citing the federal laws containing the struck down provisions.

      Talk about making yourself look stupid...

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @_Byron_ Since MY opinion hardly matters I imagine, let's rely on the supreme court to answer youfr question. On page 2 of the opinion from the court:

      2.The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law.First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and More..

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • "President Barack Obama also expressed concern over the immigration status checks allowed by Monday's ruling, saying they could lead to racial profiling."

    ...thats the DUMBEST shit I have ever heard...

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (5) | Report

  • An interesting sentence that Justice Kennedy said while defending the USG Supremacy clause, from the US Supreme Court decision today on Arizona v. United States:
    "Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system."

    Also released today from the Dept. of Homeland security under this administration:

    "The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration l More..

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (4) | Report

  • If you are for the illegal immigrants, its got to be tough to claim victory for at least two of the 4 provisions.

    1>Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

    2>Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work.

    Given that both are already against Federal Law.

    It also has to be tough to claim victory when it was upheld More..

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (4) | Report

    • @wharris "It also has to be tough to claim victory when it was upheld that your immigration status can be checked, as a part of any stop. (which really was one of the more important aspects of SB1070)"

      It was NOT upheld that immigration status can be checked 'as part of any stop'.

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (-3) | Report

    • @gregsto
      I think it was..

      Will go back and re-read the ruling.
      Reading SCOTUS rulings are not my strong suit.
      A bit tedious.

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @wharris There must be PROBABLE CAUSE to inquire into the individuals citizenship. The probable cause must be specific to the immigration status...not the probable cause allowing a traffic stop. And the court expressed concern over what will constitute such probable cause.

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @gregsto
      Agreed.
      I think i need to read more... but what I was referring to was the DOJ complaint against Arizona SB 1070, §2.

      That is the provision that requires that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest"

      If you read the SCOTUS Ruling, Page 24, it says:
      At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a waythat More..

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • How dare a state want to govern its own policies.. screw the Constitution.

    :/

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

  • Comment of user '17plus1JHP' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • Back in 1996, New Mexico police asked me if I was a US citizen when I got pulled over and I look as Hispanic as Geert Wilders.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Um, they kept the only part that was different from federal law...so yea, you look pretty stupid right about now! LOL!!

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @VikingRapeSquad You are dumb as a post. So you think federal law contains the following:

      Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

      -- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

      -- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit More..

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • Yet the court let stand one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally. The court voted 9-0 on this issue!!!! To me, this is the main part of the bill. A local cop can check and verify the status. then detain the illegal till the boarder patrol arrived.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Of course it's a victory. If I want to sell my car for $20K then I'll put it up for sale at $25K; schmuck buyer thinks he's getting a deal when I reluctantly agree to sell it for $20K.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Enjoy it while you can, gregsto, cuz your days of liberal tyranny are numbered. See you November 6th!!!

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @dirtbiker201 Please look up the definition of tyranny in any dictionary. Thanks.

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @gregsto

      Fresh off the Google search. Sounds about right for what Obama is doing as follows:

      definition of TYRANNY

      1
      : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>
      2
      a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
      b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant
      3
      More..

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @dirtbiker201 HA HA HA...he cannot get the congress to pass any legislation and he is a tyrant???

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @gregsto

      He took illegal action to stop deporting illegal aliens. His decision alone. That makes him a tyrant.

      Posted Jun-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @dirtbiker201 Um....no, that would not make him a tyrant. Hardly an example of oppressive power, or absolute power vested in a single ruler. Get real.

      Posted Jun-27-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • until obama gets kicked out of office....honestly its looking more and more likely....i wonder what their going to rule on the obama care case....this is def an interesting election, haven't seen one like this in years.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @mylostsoul
      I think Obamacare will stand but the individual mandate will be axed which will kill reform anyway. It sounded like a few months ago that is the biggest issue. If the individual mandate is thrown to the dogs i think it will be the last nail in the coffin for this administration.

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Godsrage yeah thats what i meant, i should've stated that

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @Godsrage
      That was the goal of it in the first place. They made it so absurd they knew it would end up in court. Even Sotomayer said at one point the admin wasnt making a great argument.
      Why you are wondering would they throw up this law which they knew could be over turned?! Because the Emperors goal has always been to get single payer health care!
      http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2012/03/if-the-supreme-court-votes-down-obamacare-then-what/

      http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2012/06/obama-tel More..

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

    • @Bmartin1776 yeah.....i'll not read the rest of that since its not objective and overly biased

      Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

  • It's all about perception

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

  • Who's the gorgeous babbling chic?

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Portions of text of the decision
    P. 16 of court decision pdf available online:

    Justice Kennedy (even though he was obsessed with the supremacy clause in this case...)

    "When there was no comprehensive federal program regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens, this Court found that a State had authority to pass its ownlaws on the subject. In 1971, for example, Californiapassed a law imposing civil penalties on the employment of aliens who were “not entitled to lawful residence in t More..

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

    • @Yukon6400 On page 2 of the opinion from the court:

      2.The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law.First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

      3.Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 10 More..

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'wormhole' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • You can still stop them an ask for proof of citizenship. if they can not provide it bus them to the border and tell them have a nice day!

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • Cool more dead ranchers on the border I guess. Well the USA IS the ATM machine of the 3rd world, jus't don't tell anyone we're broke, we can always print more money.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (1) | Report

  • We'll see if the Supreme Court majority holds fast and uses the same logic on the Health-care law.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Why not go ahead and make Mexico a state? This sucks.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • They get to check their status, that is huge compared to what they could do before.

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • State Laws Trump Federal Laws.
    End of Story; if not the State can withdraw from the Union.

    And as the Federal Government continues its Socialist Agenda from one Party to Another the people will demand the States with draw.
    Our States should not be under pressure due to your Federal or Worldly Agenda.
    theLAB

    Posted Jun-25-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

    • @theLAB Are you high? "State Laws Trump Federal Laws"???? On what planet? Never heard of the "Supremacy Clause" of the constitution? The most basic construct of the constitution is that no state law may trump federal law.

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @gregsto
      and the role of the Fed is to then by law enslave the States; thus is core of one power ruling is written into the constitution?

      Please do tell the role of the Fed vs. State Government.
      theLAB

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @theLAB Still high I see. Sorry but I am not interested in conducting a basic U.S. civics class for you.

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @gregsto
      the fed is there to handle inter state issues and foreign issues, it has grow into a monster.
      you must require a growing federal government for employment or dividends.
      theLAB

      Posted Jun-26-2012 By 

      (0) | Report