Appears "PUT NAME of Poster Here" Constitutional Experts Were Wrong

[DEDixon 39]

FROM NEWS STORY: The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

I don't have time, but sure would be interesting to dive back into the archives here to see the names of those experts.

5-3 decision so not even close to the experts.

[^_^ 5,021]

FROM NEWS STORY: The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

I don't have time, but sure would be interesting to dive back into the archives here to see the names of those experts.

5-3 decision so not even close to the experts.

You should make time. And I don't mean to dive into the archives, but to maybe dive into this actual ruling

[DEDixon 39]

FROM NEWS STORY: "Even Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, said she was "terribly confused" by the government's argument against the checks."

WOW!

[^_^ 5,021]

Here is how volokh.com (a legal blog) describes the Arizona ruling:

In the Arizona decision, a 5-3 majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining three liberal justices (Justice Kagan was recused), ruled that three out of the four challenged provisions of the Arizona immigration law are preempted by federal law. The fourth – the controversial provision requiring state police to check the immigration status of some people arrested for other reasons – is remanded to the lower courts so that they can construe the state law in order to determine more fully whether it conflicts with federal law.

[DEDixon 39]

You should make time. And I don't mean to dive into the archives, but to maybe dive into this actual ruling

I don't need the knitty gritty, just this:

"Meanwhile Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, says that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. ""

[^_^ 5,021]

I don't need the knitty gritty, just this:

"Meanwhile Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, says that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. ""

So as long as people you hate are unhappy, you're good. Got it.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Also..

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;

One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;

And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

So it seems to me that they can ask about immigration status but have no power to actually do anything about it unless there happens to be a federal unit nearby.

[DEDixon 39]

Here is how volokh.com (a legal blog) describes the Arizona ruling:

In the Arizona decision, a 5-3 majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining three liberal justices (Justice Kagan was recused), ruled that three out of the four challenged provisions of the Arizona immigration law are preempted by federal law. The fourth – the controversial provision requiring state police to check the immigration status of some people arrested for other reasons – is remanded to the lower courts so that they can construe the state law in order to determine more fully whether it conflicts with federal law.

Spin, just spin. Fact is, it wasn't struck down like the "experts" said it would be.... you know the MOST debated portion WASN'T struck down. It does matter which of the justices struck it down, just that it was and that is 1 for the non-experts and 0 for the experts.

[^_^ 5,021]

3 out of 4 provisions before the court are struck down and you characterize that as a win.

[DEDixon 39]

Also..

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;

One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;

And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

So it seems to me that they can ask about immigration status but have no power to actually do anything about it unless there happens to be a federal unit nearby.

Those were not the most debated portion of the law.

You don't think there is a federal unit in AZ? At this time, I actually don't know how a stop and then arrest will play out.... I'm betting it will vary greatly and we'll have to wait for the stats to draw any real conclusion.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Those were not the most debated portion of the law.

You don't think there is a federal unit in AZ? At this time, I actually don't know how a stop and then arrest will play out.... I'm betting it will vary greatly and we'll have to wait for the stats to draw any real conclusion.

I don't think they'll come out for every little traffic stop.

[DEDixon 39]

3 out of 4 provisions before the court are struck down and you characterize that as a win.

Yes, because those 3 were not as hotly debated as the one that was upheld. The experts said "stop" portion would be struck down because of possible racial profiling and they made it seem like a no brainer, but there it is, upheld by liberals at that. And like I said previous, the result of a stop will vary greatly so will have to wait for the stats.

[DEDixon 39]

I don't think they'll come out for every little traffic stop.

I don't think they have to come out to the scene, they'll come to the detention center and given the number of illegals in AZ, there won't be just one for the feds to do whatever they may do (I don't know what they will do ... again, will probably vary greatly depending on the circumstances).

[JohnR! 5,495]

So it seems to me that they can ask about immigration status but have no power to actually do anything about it unless there happens to be a federal unit nearby.

Precisely. The State of Arizona cant mandate that everyone carries a passport with which to prove citizenship.

I don't think they have to come out to the scene, they'll come to the detention center and given the number of illegals in AZ, there won't be just one for the feds to do whatever they may do (I don't know what they will do ... again, will probably vary greatly depending on the circumstances).

It will also depend on the circumstances of the arrests. How does one tell the difference between and illegal and a US citizen?

[DEDixon 39]

About I meant "Spin, just spin. Fact is, it wasn't struck down like the "experts" said it would be.... you know the MOST debated portion WASN'T struck down. It does "not" matter which of the justices struck it down, just that it was and that is 1 for the non-experts and 0 for the experts."

But since you brought it up, that 3 liberal judges sided with the "stop" law and 2 not so liberal judges joined them, this makes the experts look even worse.