June 25, 2012

Supreme Court's Arizona immigration decision: bad or disastrous?

The LA Times reports:
The Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Arizona’s tough immigration law gave both sides an opportunity to celebrate, criticize and, inevitably, point fingers. Above all, it underscored the tricky politics surrounding the emotional issue — for both parties — especially in the midst of a fiercely fought presidential campaign. 
President Obama offered qualified praise for the ruling, saying he was pleased the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Arizona law, including parts that would have made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper documentation. 
But Obama, like many Latino activists, expressed concern the court upheld perhaps the most controversial portion of the state crackdown, a provision allowing police officers, making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people who they suspect may be in the country illegally.

But that sounds more like the Best Case Scenario.

A commenter recently pointed out that there's no good reason for the Supreme Court to be based in Washington D.C. What, they don't have email these days? They have to go look up precedents in paper files only available in D.C.?


The Justices (other than Clarence Thomas, who loves RVing around the country) just get encapsulated in the D.C. Bubble. In particular, Washington D.C. based folks are a generation behind most of the rest of the country in understanding the impact of illegal immigration. White people in D.C. are all for it because, deep down, they see it as a way to push blacks out of D.C. 


Either move the Supreme Court permanently to, say, Kansas City, or make it move around the country every couple of years. 

45 comments:

helene edwards said...

fiercely fought presidential campaign.???

What would a tame campaign look like?

MC said...

Many state Supreme Courts will sit for a few days a year at a law school within the state, and the U.S. Circuit courts try to schedule their arguments so that cases are heard at a location relatively close to the district court where they were filed.

Although the SCOTUS will never move from D.C., it wouldn't hurt for them to spend a few weeks out of the year at oral arguments around the country.

Edward Sabatine said...

They should never have removed the requirement for Supreme Court justices to ride circuit.

At first glance, this is a strange ruling, it strikes down the parts of the law that basically mirror federal law but upholds the more intrusive police tactics that might actually be constitutionally questionable.

Anonymous said...

What would a tame campaign look like?

See McCain, Ford or Dole - Presidential Campaign.

countenance said...

As far as that goes, why does there need to be a formal national capital at all?

Anonymous said...

The story today is not the Supreme Court ruling - the story is that the Obama Administration immediately announced that they would NOT enforce the nation's existing immigration laws and would NOT deport [in fact, would NOT even take custody of] the illegal aliens discovered by the state of Arizona.

In normal times, this move would be met by an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives, with articles of impeachment then sent to the Senate.

But we no longer have the Rule of Law in this country.

These Bolsheviks are really upping the ante on us, and - given our apparent betrayal by the GOP leadership - we are running out of options for peaceful mutual co-existence with them.

Beecher Asbury said...

Kansas City, I love it. They can share the new diggs of the Federal Reserve.

Anonymous said...

I agree the Court should be moved, and not to the Left Coast.

It's hard for people who don't actually live in towns and cities and neighborhoods overrun by illegals to understand what happens and happens fast. I'm sure Court members fall into that category.

Try as I might, I can't understand how anyone with even a basic understanding of sovereignty could have struck down any part of that law, much less have done so when the Imperial President had given every indication he would tell all Fed. authorities not to do anything when an Arizona law enforcement officer called the Feds and told them that they were holding an illegal...which is just what Obama had Napolitano do.

If one is honest with one's self, he'd have to agree with Scalia that the Founders/states would never have joined the union were they told the Fed. government would not enforce laws nor recognize the sovereignty of the states to enforce laws protecting the citizens of that state.

Anonymous said...

"Although the SCOTUS will never move from D.C., it wouldn't hurt for them to spend a few weeks out of the year at oral arguments around the country."

Better yet, they should be required to travel by car through several states a year during summer recess, and forced to stay at only Motel 6s.

Mac said...

It would probably be too expensive to undertake but we could imitate South Africa's example. South Africa has three capitals. Judicial, executive, and legislative.

Perhaps the Executive could remain in D.C., the Supreme Court sit in the Midwest, and the Congress assemble on the West Coast.

Or if a transcontinental govt is too much work, just scatter the 3 branches along the DC-Boston corridor.

Harry Baldwin said...

fiercely fought presidential campaign.??? What would a tame campaign look like?

Believe me, the Obama administration will fight fiercely to hold onto power--we're seeing it already. Not sure how fiercely Romney is willing to fight--hopefully more so than McCain.

anony-mouse said...

Half-full here:

Now legislators in other states have a Court-protected template to use in other states, should they want.

While its true that Mittens isn't saying anything, but should he get elected he needs to do very little to start deporting lots.

Mitch said...

Scalia's dissent doesn't read like someone who needs to live in Kansas City to get the impact of illegal immigration.

And there are plenty of liberals in Arizona, much less Kansas City, who agree with the justices who voted to toss the law.

I'm really depressed by this decision, particularly in light of the Homeland Security's announcement that they won't take calls from the Arizona police. How can we get to such a place? It's insane.

Matthew said...

What it tells us is what we suspected: that the Court stands 5-4 against enforcing immigration laws (Roberts voted as he did for what were (hopefully) tactical reasons).

Who are the next justices to retire, and who will replace them, and if we get a majority will we try to overturn precedents like this and Plyler?

Hey, the Lefties didn't object to changing their mind on gays just 17years after the last ruling.

"Perhaps the Executive could remain in D.C., the Supreme Court sit in the Midwest, and the Congress assemble on the West Coast."

Congress should be required to spend the Summer session in Phoenix, Arizona and the Winter session in International Falls, Minnesota.

Anonymous said...

'Disastrous'? I guess media got tired of 'odious' and 'noxious'.

Anonymous said...

We have lost on immigration, steve. The war is pretty much over. There has been a shift of some crucial numerical bloc to the other side that means we cannot win. The elites of both sides were always against us (witness this "conservative" court today empowering immigrants. What has happened to shift the polls that crucial amount is that a number of white homeowners, most of them underwater on their mortgages, have realized that the only way to drive up or stablize home prices is by pumping in the immigrants.


The idea of the DC bubble is flawed and superficial. There is indeed a bubble, but it exists in the mind of the elites. The brains on the SCOTUS bench were indoctrinated, even "grown," in a sense, in academia. These are people from elite schools, and in elite schools, you are there because you have shown that you can internalize the culture of the elite, and that means becoming one with Federalism, pro-immigration, anti-welfare state, pro-racial integration. All these ideas got their start in the elite colleges. SCOTUS brains are integrated into this elite culture.

From impressionable youth to elite-centric judges.

BTW, being anti-immigration means being leftist. Immigration weakens voter unity. And only a united electorate can stand up against the depredations of the elite. That is the founding principle of politics: that democracy is directly proportional to voter homogeneity, to national homogeneity, and inversely proportional to racial and cultural diversity. This is one huge reason why the elite love immigration and racial integration. This is why finland, sweden germany et al, work better than the USA--because they are (still, yet?) more homogeneous than the USA. This bedrock principle is only known to a few iconoclastic academics and bookworms such as myself. Ever read Federalist #10? REALLY read it? I guess not.

Anonymous said...

As far as the decision goes, same old, same old. They struck the whole thing down, the bit about checking immigration status is just political smoke and mirrors to prevent the polloi from understanding how screwed they are. They kicked it back to the state court to decide exactly how it will be implemented so the lower federal court can then decide that such implementation is "profiling." Even if they don't decide it's illegal "profiling", what has been won? The right to report that you've stopped/are holding an illegal to federal authorities who promptly put that information in the circular file? Big deal. The whole thing is a charade, the elitist program to elect a new people and culture is going to go through regardless of democracy or the law or the social and economic consequences.

Anonymous said...

The story today is not the Supreme Court ruling - the story is that the Obama Administration immediately announced that they would NOT enforce the nation's existing immigration laws
true except that they will never state it explicitly - since the clinton years/baby boom ascendancy -its been spin, spin, spin,
Hey man, there are no absolute truths, hey man, do your own thing, hey many, I don't need your rules.

God, I hate the baby boom generation.

Anonymous said...

The decision made absolutely no sense from a legal stand point. From a cultural marxist/Frankfurt School perspective, it makes perfect sense.

How does the federal government refuse to enforce the laws? Isn't that proof of the federal government giving up its sovereign right?

Where do we go from here if we don't want an America flooded with illegals from all over the world?

Whiskey said...

Its a terrible decision, since Obama's refusal to enforce the border anyway is what prompted the law in the first place. The Supremes have said that constitutionally, the Federal Govt can simply ignore the border and not enforce immigration law and there is NOTHING States can do about it.

Why?

Because people in this country, including most Whites, agree with that logic. We call them, women.

Look at Time Magazine. Yes a shadow of itself, but still read by millions of women in the US. Men don't read that stuff.

Mass Illegal immigration benefits women 76% or so of the 3.8 million public school teachers are women. Mass illegal immigration produces cheap nannies. Mass illegal immigration produces cheap gardeners, restaurants, and the like. It is "fair" and "anti-Racist" (i.e. against those icky, non-sexy White guys).

Bottom line, there is nothing to be done but watch America burn. And burn it will, starting in California (I say this as likely casualty #1). California is currently $16 billion in the budget hole, and getting worse. Charlie Munger's spoiled, Meghan McCainesque daughter Molly, a Civil Rights Lawyer (and like most professional White women someone who ... yes wait for it ... HATES HATES HATES White guys who lack the charisma and sexiness she demands) has a tax proposal to raise up to 2.2% EXTRA of the income tax over $7,000. Brown has another proposal to raise taxes by a lesser amount.

The MONEY aspect is that Mexicans mostly cannot feed and clothe their kids without considerable welfare assistance. This is why California is $16 billion in the hole. The Munger and Brown initiatives will likely fail, Brown will likely just copy Obama and simply raise taxes by fiat, and start seizing people's houses. Such as many here reading Isteve. To pay for the Mexican voters.

Who will NOT be content to live in a favela. This will never be Brazil. It will be a sharp, hard fight over who will be tax slaves and who will be the overlords. It will be extraordinarily bitter, fights over money always are. Considering that most Whites have ZILCH ZERO NADA social network to fall back on and that the Government exists ONLY to punish them, and NEVER to help them.

guest007 said...

Elites whites in DC love illegal immigrates because they will do all of the food service, cleaning, and handy man jobs with better performance and lower pay than blacks.

That is one of the reasons that DC is a city that is almost totally devoid of blue collar whites.

Average Joe said...

I think the age of the Justices is a greater problem than the location. The Justices all grew up in an America that was overwhelmingly white and so they have difficulty accepting that that America is dying a little bit every day. I think younger Justices would take the Latino problem more seriously.

Anonymous said...

How about moving the capitol too? Indianopolis would be a good choice. According to the book nine nations of North America it stands on the "border" of three of them.

Anonymous said...

Immigration weakens voter unity. And only a united electorate can stand up against the depredations of the elite.

This is the paradox. Those who claim to believe in socialism/collectivism the most push hardest for immigration. Thus guaranteeing that a socialist/collectivist state will never be built by the disparate, multicult population that results.

Anonymous said...

Thus guaranteeing that a socialist/collectivist state will never be built by the disparate, multicult population that results.
is that what they really want? or an authoritarian state. Multiculti 'empires' (for they are not nations) are always authoritarian.

Anonymous said...

Homeland Security's announcement that they won't take calls from the Arizona police.
at this point our elite have made it clear the law doesn't matter, democracy doesn't matter, principle doesn't matter. What choice do they leave us?

Hail said...

"White people in D.C. are all for it because, deep down, they see it as a way to push blacks out of D.C."

Washington DC Metro Area, by the 2010s here, surely has as many Nonwhite residents of post-1968 immigrant stock as Blacks descended from the slaves.

(A large share of Washington-DC Blacks are of Black Great-Migration stock, too).

Anonymous said...

Homeland Security's announcement that they won't take calls from the Arizona police.
at this point our elite have made it clear the law doesn't matter, democracy doesn't matter, principle doesn't matter. What choice do they leave us?


Secession would appear to be a reasonable remedy.

Norville Rogers said...

In futuristic movies about cyber-cops/legal travesties the judges will usually appear as spectres through a telepresence thing--but this is always in the service of a Luddite concern about the mechanization of justice. I guess housing the merit elite in a Green Zone metroplex is just the more pedestrian, palatable route to the same outcome

Norville Rogers said...

Since SCOTUS is so important now shouldn't they quite reasonably be required to work & live in a bunker under the Rockies?

Anonymous said...

How about moving the capitol too? Indianopolis would be a good choice. According to the book nine nations of North America it stands on the "border" of three of them.

You got me wondering about a balance-of-power location that would work; Indy actually isn't bad, or Cincinnati. Unfortunately despite its eminent normalness, gonna have to disqualify anywhere in Iowa (see: ethanol)

I'm liking Denver/Col. Springs more & more, which if nothing else has nicer weather for 4th of July events.

The Will of Landru said...

Why is it that Justices have lifetime appointment? The relevant passage is this:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

That doesn't say anything about lifetime appointment. The Constitution plainly lays out how long Presidents, Senators and Congressman serve, how come no explicit language for SC Justices?

My theory is that the Founders did not think through the issue very well. The Founders wanted to insulate the Justices from politics, but life expectancy being what it was in the 1780's, it was inconceivable that a Justice would hold their jobs for 30-40 years, in ill health, holding out for the right President to come and appoint a new one. Another issue is who could fairly arbitrate an issue involving the Supreme Court.

Anonymous said...

You could move it to St. Louis, while also replicating 1980s-era D.C.'s urban discord in the bargain

Anonymous said...

The idea of selecting a presidential candidate because he was a governor of New York or a general or a minister or whatever has probably gone out with the old, dead America. How long till the Sidwell Friends vs. St. Albans election? With both names from each party on the ticket having risen up from humble Maryland/N. Virginia lobbying families--I give it 3 more cycles

Anonymous said...

Gnash your teeth close the bordrs but you cannot stop the end of white privilege

white men will have to do things on their on merit for the first time

JSM said...

"Because people in this country, including most Whites, agree with that logic. We call them, women"

Oh, shut up.

Just two posts below this one, Steve reposted from a prior entry of his where he showed that White married women voted for Republicans more than unmarried men.

"As I pointed out after the 2004 election:
Bush carried merely 44% of the single white females but 61% of the married white women—a 17 point difference.
Among white men, Bush won 53% of the singles and 66% of the married—a 13 point difference."

jody said...

janet napolitano, the treasonous secretary of homeland "defense", was the governor of arizona. she was right in the middle of the mexican invasion and loved every minute of it. napolitano was extremely in favor of total mexican invasion and went out of her way at every turn to help the illegal aliens and block law enforcement.

so much for the supreme court justices needing to leave washington DC to get a better perspective on "how this mexican invasion thing actually works".

why do you think she's in charge of homeland "defense" in the first place?

the cabinet is filled to the brim with traitors, anti-american activists, racists, socialists, and communists.

jody said...

"We have lost on immigration, steve. The war is pretty much over."

agree. this is why i stopped even participating in stuff like vdare and american renaissance. peter brimelow and jared taylor were writing and talking while i watched america's literal enemies assume the highest levels of power in the united states. the white house, the senate, the supreme court.

who do you think wins a fight between those two groups? america's enemies just secured a fight ending victory, while peter brimelow...begged for another 10,000 bucks to keep his website running. jared taylor even gets his ass kicked out of hotels now. amren can't even hold their meetings.

these guys accomplished absolutely nothing in 15 years. they've gotten the shit beaten out them totally, every step of the way.

let's not forget that obama can make either of those guys disappear tomorrow, no questions asked. not that he would even acknowledge their existence, because they are absolutely nothing. but even if they were the slightest something, the slightest threat to his plans, they would cease to exist whenever the kenyan in chief ordered it.

Anonymous said...

The federal government moves from passively ignoring the law to actively preventing the law being applied.

Anonymous said...

The weak point in the constitution was the lack of democratic control over the supreme court.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Anon - you better hope for white privilege, because they do the best job at running a place. Who are you going to replace them with? Insecure, peri-menopausal women? Han Chinese supremacists? Hispanic jefes? Incompetent blacks?

Multiculti 'empires' (for they are not nations) are always authoritarian.

Worse, they are totalitarian. A totalitarian regime should be contrasted with an authoritarian regime. The totalitarian regime itself exists as an affront to reality, and so must seek even to control reality. At one extreme is Stalin's USSR. At another is emasculated, warped Sweden--pioneers of sex "reassignment" surgery to mold human bodies into the demented vision in some poor f***-up's head.

jody said...

with this precedent, what other federal laws are states free to ignore and not observe or participate in? this is the question we actually need to be asking. now that the supreme court has established a brave, new world, how far does this brave, new world extend?

only DHS, (or INS? or has that been completely deactivated) can enforce immigation law. so now, can only the FBI enforce criminal law? only the secret service can enforce mint law? only the IRS can enforce tax law? only the ATF can enforce fireams law?

states are free to ignore that stuff since they "have no juridiction" and "aren't free to merely enforce federal law on their own"? state laws cannot mirror federal laws, and arizona state troopers cannot arrest bank robbers, because that's the FBI's juridiction and arizona LEOs have no business enforcing federal law. do employers still need to withhold IRS taxes or is that "overstepping their jurisdiction" as well? maybe they can collect all the IRS tax money and hold it in an escrow account until obama sends some law enforcement officers to collect all the illegal aliens arizona has detained.

i agree completely with everybody who said, from a legal perspective, the ruling makes no sense at all.

Transhumanist said...

Norville Rogers said...

In futuristic movies about cyber-cops/legal travesties the judges will usually appear as spectres through a telepresence thing--but this is always in the service of a Luddite concern about the mechanization of justice

The mechanization of justice is not a bad thing. It could greatly reduce biases (both conservative and liberal) and lead to more fairness.

William Boot said...

Can somebody please explain something to me? I'm not kidding here. I seriously do not understand?

How is it possible for the police to stop you without determining if you are in the country legally?

Any time I have been stopped by police, which has only been for speeding, they have demanded to see a driver's license and they have proceeded to check that license against a computer. If my license didn't check out, because it was phony, I assume they'd arrest me until I could prove my identity somehow.

How is it possible for an illegal alien to get by this check in any state during any run in that's serious enough for the cop to demand ID? How is what Arizona is doing any different for ID purposes than what any other state is doing?

Anonymous said...

I live in an apartment in Overland Park, Kansas, a largely white suburb of metro Kansas city. Since we don't have inhouse washing machines, I have had to resort to doing my laundry in motels' laundry rooms or driving to North Kansas City (across from the NS yard and Harrah's) to avoid being surrounded by noisy, smelly mestizos in laundromats whose oriental owners refuse to run the air conditioning. No one will build new laundromats: only orientals will even own them anymore because they skim profits and will head back if caught. (They themselves have told me this.)