In Arizona immigration case, Supreme Court justices cast doubt on government's a

[tombogan03884]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/supreme-court-justices-cast-doubt-arizona-argument-161745869.html

Supreme Court justices seemed deeply skeptical of the government's argument that Arizona cannot require police officers to ask about immigration status during stops at oral arguments Wednesday. The Obama administration sued to block Arizona's law, called SB1070, shortly after it passed two years ago, saying it interfered with federal authority over immigration.

The law makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper immigration papers, and also requires police officers to check immigration status and make warrantless arrests for immigration crimes in some cases.

The justices asked U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli why the federal government has set up a system for local police officers to ask and answer questions about suspects' immigration statuses if it did not intend for local officers to do so. They also pointed out that the government doesn't have to deport anyone who Arizona officers turn over to them after these stops. "It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally or not," Chief Justice John Roberts said. Verrilli denied that and said that once immigration checks become mandatory and a state policy, they interfere with the federal government's immigration priorities and could cause problems with other nations if large numbers of illegal immigrants are jailed in Arizona under SB1070's other statutes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, interrupted Verrilli to tell him she was "terribly confused" by his argument about why the state is not allowed to question people about their status.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, generally the court's swing vote, asked repeatedly about how long someone would be detained while a police officer checked his or her status. "What if it takes two weeks," to determine someone's status, he asked. Paul Clement, representing Arizona, said it would take an average of only 11 minutes. Verrilli countered that it takes 70 minutes, when you take into account the hour wait to get through to the federal government's databases.

The lawyers also sparred over whether the statute's criminalization of illegal immigrants seeking work conflicts with Congress' intent, since the major 1986 immigration law criminalizes only employers, not employees (unless they commit fraud). Verrilli said it would be an "extraordinary" step to jail illegal immigrants for seeking work under state law. Clement admitted under Kennedy's questioning that the Arizona statute that would jail illegal immigrants for simply seeking work has "no direct analog in federal law." But he said that fact alone is not enough to say that it conflicts with federal law. Sotomayor countered that Congress "explicitly rejected" criminalizing unauthorized people who seek work.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case because she was solicitor general when the Obama administration filed suit against the law. If the Court splits 4-4, the 9th Circuit's decision blocking the four major provisions of the law would stand. The decision is not expected until June.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, Romney adviser Kris Kobach, who helped write the bill, and ousted Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce were in the audience.

Outside the courthouse, Pearce said he was very "pleased" with how the arguments went. "I think it will be a minimum of 5-3" in favor of Arizona, he told Yahoo News. Kobach, meanwhile, said he thought the Justice Department was "on the ropes" for most the arguments. A few hundred protesters shouting, "What do want? Justice!" in Spanish also demonstrated outside the Supreme Court steps, while pro-SB1070 protesters were scarce. Carmelo Cordoba, a 68-year-old legal immigrant from Ecuador, told Yahoo News he came to protest "to support all immigrants." "I know the persecution immigrants face," he said in Spanish.

[MikeBjerum]

Prepare yourself for another Presidential lecture to the Bench.

[JC5123]

I am very torn over his one. I think that local agencies should have the ability to enforce federal law, however Arizona passing their own immigration policy should not stand. I agree with what the intention is, however you cannot have it both ways. You cannot scream about federal overreach on obamacare being unconstitutional, without also screaming about state overreach into federal territory.

I realize that this was an act of desperation on the part of Arizona. Needing to enforce federal laws that the feds will not, however being a member of these United States, you must still hold to the US Constitution. Otherwise we are no better than obama himself.

[MikeBjerum]

JC5123,

Arizona did not pass their own immigration laws.  What they passed was a law that said nobody could stop Arizona law enforcement from enforcing federal laws concerning immigration, and that as a secondary offense, when suspected, Arizona law enforcement must check for legal status.

It is not setting standards, profiling or focusing on immigration.  It is good police work, that is all, and that is what I read in what the Justices are looking at and asking why Pres. BHO has an issue with this.

[JC5123]

JC5123,

Arizona did not pass their own immigration laws.  What they passed was a law that said nobody could stop Arizona law enforcement from enforcing federal laws concerning immigration, and that as a secondary offense, when suspected, Arizona law enforcement must check for legal status.

It is not setting standards, profiling or focusing on immigration.  It is good police work, that is all, and that is what I read in what the Justices are looking at and asking why Pres. BHO has an issue with this.

I agree, I have nothing but support for what Arizona is doing, and I think that it should have been the case from the start. My only point is that the SCOTUS needs to decide cases based on the Constitution, and in this case, Arizona is on the wrong side. I don't like it, but as I said before, if we are going to beat the feds over the head with it, we have to apply it equally.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

I don't see anything unconstitutional about the law.  It doesn't change immigration law at all.  All it says is that if you break the law nobody can stop local law enforcement from arresting you.  If they throw this out it will bring into question the jurisdiction of local law enforcement in any laws written at the federal level.

[JC5123]

Perhaps I am missing something then. Federal crimes have always been handled by federal agencies. Local agencies can capture and detain, but then must ceade to the fed agency in charge. What Arizona has done, (the way I understand it) is to instruct it's LEA's to actively look for someones immigration status. (Which I believe they should be doing anyway) This however steps on the toes of ICE. I will agree with you that my arguement is a technicality, however I believe it to be correct in keeping with the intentions of the constitution.
Unfortunately, I believe that this is one of those instances where, just because we should, doesn't mean we can.

[MikeBjerum]

Your windshield has been blurred by the bug guts spread by the left.  Arizona LE has not been told to actively search, look for, or enforce issues like ICE would do.  They have been required to follow up on red flags risen during the handling of an issue - a secondary offense.  We had this with the seatbelt laws in Minnesota for several years:  You could not be pulled over for not wearing your seatbelt, but if you were stopped for some other reason they could cite you for not wearing your seatbelt.  Arizona LE is not out actively enforcing immigration, but if they stop you for speeding, and you have no id, if you can not verify your personal information on your id, or any other items that would make LE question your status as being legal, they must follow up.  At this point they are detained, and ICE comes into the picture to finish their job.

The left has twisted this into a racial profiling Mexican hate thing where Arizona will be raiding homes, businesses, and busting shoppers demanding papers.

[Timothy]

I agree with M58...

On a similar line, last year working for employer I found that there were a few illegals working there.  Just for the heck of it, I went to the ICE website and found that there was no where to report an illegal on their site!  The Feds don't seem to care!

[JC5123]

I don't disagree with you guys, and like I have said I support AZ doing what they have to do. I just don't know if this will stand constitutional muster. I hope it does. I just don't know if it should.

I guess what I am looking at is the big picture here. The feds sticking their noses where they don't belong and usually distorting the commerse clause to do it. Most of these cases should have not stood, but did. We are always harping about activist judges and distortion of the Constitution. A document that our laws are supposed to be decided on. So if there is a law that doesn't jive with it, it should be struck down. Otherwise if you pick and choose based on anything other than the Constitution, you open the door for more laws to be thrust upon us and declared A-OK by the SCOTUS.