Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
One of the cases that the Justices considered at their Conference last week was Arizona v. United States, in which the state has asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision blocking enforcement of four provisions of S.B. 1070, its controversial immigration law.

Quote:
CERTIORARI GRANTED

11-182
ARIZONA, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this
petition.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
SCOTUS takes up AZ SB1070 this week.

Paul Kramer of Slate suggests they should deal with it.

The Case of the 22 Lewd Chinese Women
A crazy 19th-century case shows how the Supreme Court should deal with Arizona’s immigration law.

By Paul A. Kramer|Posted Monday, April 23, 2012, at 3:22 PM ET


Quote:
[...]

Laws like Arizona’s have become familiar as Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah have passed versions of immigration control. At first, these moves by the states were surprising because federal primacy over immigration policy had gone virtually undisputed over the previous 100 years. Go back further in time, however, and you see that American society has gone the way of state-based crackdowns on immigration before. About a century and a half ago, for example, California set out to seal its borders against unwelcome arrivals. As today, the state’s immigration code met legal challenges, and the resulting Supreme Court decision helped firmly establish federal authority over immigration. One critical case involved 22 Chinese women who were identified by a California official as “lewd”—i.e., prostitutes—and barred from entering the United States under state law. Its story shows how 19th-century Supreme Court justices came to disapprove mightily of state efforts to regulate immigration.

The Case of the 22 Chinese Women, as it became known, began at 1 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 24, 1874, when California’s commissioner of immigration, Rudolph Piotrowski (himself an immigrant, from Poland), boarded the American steamer Japan, recently docked at San Francisco harbor, and inspected its passengers. The ship had set out from Hong Kong, and nearly all of the 600 people aboard were Chinese. Finding 22 of the female passengers suspicious—because they were traveling without husbands or children and their replies to his questions about their domestic circumstances were “perfectly not satisfactory”—he commanded the ship’s master to pay a bond of $500 for each woman to disembark. When the master refused, Piotrowski ordered the women detained onboard and forcibly returned to Hong Kong on the ship’s next voyage. They were, he said, “lewd.”

[...]

The day after Piotrowski ordered the detention of the 22 women, someone—likely Chinese merchants—retained lawyers for them. At the four-day trial in San Francisco, the two sides grappled over state and federal power, the women’s rights, and about what a quick inspection through an interpreter could and could not tell you about an immigrant. The state argued that California had a right to protect itself against “pestilential immorality.” The women’s lawyers countered that their clients had certificates of transit and rights under the United States’ treaty with China, which guaranteed the “inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance.” Called to the witness stand, the women protested their innocence; many insisted they had husbands, some in China and some in the United States. When a woman named Ah Fook, who told the court she had traveled to San Francisco with her sister in search of sewing work, burst into tears, insisting on her “good intention,” the other women joined her, “making the room echo with their cries and screams.” The bewildered judge hurriedly left the bench and the women were temporarily removed from the chamber.

[...]

In his 1874 opinion, Justice Field, for his part, warned that the regulation of immigration by state-level authorities would inevitably lead to superficial profiling and the abuse of power. If states could take it upon themselves to deny immigrants the right to enter the country merely on suspicion of law-breaking or immorality, he prophesied, “a door will be opened to all sorts of oppression.” One hundred and thirty-eight years later, Arizona and a handful of other states have opened that door. It is now the Supreme Court’s job to close it.


long but interesting read

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
SCOTUSblog

Quote:
Monday round-up

The weekend’s coverage focused on the upcoming oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of several provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/monda ... ore-143650

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:37 pm
Posts: 469
Location: South of the Border
Occupation: Retireded
Ah Fook? Wish I'd seen that before I became Shagnastie ... :((

_________________
"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 12909
Location: location, location
Occupation: Ruler of the Intarwebz
Shagnastie wrote:
Ah Fook? Wish I'd seen that before I became Shagnastie ... :((

 ! Foggy wrote:
I can change screen names ... ;;)

_________________
... then one day I found some birthers on my planet. Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 5:25 pm
Posts: 1430
Absolutely sickening:

Quote:
SB 1070: Supreme Court Appears To Favor Arizona On Controversial Immigration Law

...Chief Justice John Roberts led an attack...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 51622.html

This country is obviously screwed as long as Roberts heads the court. His nomination should have been fought tooth and nail and never should have happened, Worst thing to happen to this country in 50 years, imo.

I'm now convinced they will strike down the health care law. Assholes. :twoup:

_________________
"It’s time for this charade to stop” - Cold Case Posse Member Mike Zullo, destroying Irony Meters worldwide


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2579
Location: In exile in NOVA
9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part most of provisions are invalidated.

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2579
Location: In exile in NOVA
"check your papers" not yet preempted

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
From SCOTUS Liveblog...

Quote:
10:16

Amy Howe:
Here's the second and only other opinion in Arizona.
10:16

Amy Howe:
Justice Kennedy announces.
10:16

Amy Howe:
The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Justice Kagan does not participate.
10:17

Amy Howe:
The Court rules that Section 3, 5, and 6 are preempted.
10:17

Tom:
Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.
10:18

Amy Howe:
It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released.

10:19

Tom:
The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the "check your papers" provision that commands officers to check immigration status.
10:20

Amy Howe:
The opinion also says that today's ruling does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law.
10:20

Tom:
The court says that it is not clear whether application of this provision will interfere with immigration law.

10:20

Amy Howe:
There are ongoing proceedings on Section 2(B) and whether it involves racial profiling; that issue was NOT before the Court today.
10:20

Kali:
Here's a link to the opinion in Arizona v. US: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 82b5e1.pdf

10:21

Tom:
Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.


10:26

Amy Howe:
Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have each filed opinions in Arizona.

10:26

Amy Howe:
Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.
10:26

Tom:
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.

10:27

Tom:
The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.


_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Posts: 13611
Location: New England
Occupation: Professor of Sociology
I am confused. The Miller show seems to be pleased with the decision.

_________________
"Someone should tell Mrs. Reagan that young people -- not even young people on drugs -- are not the ones responsible for the major problems besetting the world!" John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel, p. 370.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10672
Welsh Dragon wrote:
9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part most of provisions are invalidated.


Haven't read it yet, but here's the opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 82b5e1.pdf

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2579
Location: In exile in NOVA
From the opinion:

(b)
Quote:
This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with those limits, §2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.
(1)
The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of informationabout possible immigration violations. See §§1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at ___. Pp. 20–21.
(2)
It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detaineesfor no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens incustody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse tofederal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the lawas interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 2579
Location: In exile in NOVA
TollandRCR wrote:
I am confused. The Miller show seems to be pleased with the decision.


It is a win for the administration 3 of 4 key provisions overturned and signals that the remaining one would have to be construed very narrowly

_________________
They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. – Carl Sagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
Also at Jack's...

Quote:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012



_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm
Posts: 6640
Don't drive non-white in Arizona.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
What a douchebag...

Quote:
Amy Howe:
As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10672
Just listening to some lawyer pundits at GOS radio (Daily Kos). They point out that the racial profiling aspect of "papers please" was not challenged by the Justice Department at this stage, since this was only a facial challenge to the legislation. They expect further litigation on that section, but in my experience, that is going to be some years down the road. And, of course, they didn't address how a Rmoney Justice Dept. might pursue this case. Yet another reason this election is so damned important.

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
Offtopic :
Birfers will go nutzoid over Scalia's dissent...

‎"Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:"... from Scalia's dissent

“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).
See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maximof International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).1

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5521
Occupation: retired
Whenever I have encountered the description of illegal aliens as criminals, I have been commenting that it is not a crime to be out of status and that it is a civil matter. If it were a crime, they would get the normal first amendment protections for a person accused of a crime such as legal counsel and a jury trial.

Now I can point to this part of the decision:

As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.

When state legislators pass laws criminalizing an immigration status violations, they are unconstitutional.

Does it make sense to check someone's paper for a civil violation over which the local LE has no authority? It seems to me that the states have been given a warning to back off and tread carefully in how they enforce the 'check your papers' provision.

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 87.666 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
TPMDC

Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

Quote:
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down key parts of Arizona’s immigration law, but upheld one controversial provision — at least for now.

In a 5-3 ruling handed down by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the high court held that most of the provisions being challenged encroached on turf that is constitutionally reserved for the federal government. The court overturned parts of the law that criminalize one’s presence in Arizona without documentation, criminalize working or looking for work without legal status, and permit police to arrest people without a warrant if there’s suspicion that they’ve committed a deportable crime.

But the provision of the law permitting police to check a person’s immigration papers during lawful detainments was not thrown out by the court. Rather, the court declared that it was premature for the lower courts to block that provision of the law and left open the possibility of revisiting its constitutionality after it goes into effect.

[...]

The decision is a blow for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and serves as a warning shot to other state legislatures supportive of similar measures. On one hand it could help Republicans energize conservatives, who are strongly supportive of the law. On the other hand, the decision could help Democrats galvanize Hispanics, who would be disproportionately targeted by the law and broadly oppose it.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm
Posts: 10672
Don't forget, Mittens said he supported the AZ law, even went so far as to call it "model legislation". I am sure you will see this in an Obama commercial, coming soon to a TV near you. I need to write a check.

_________________
"All this talk about blowjobs makes me want to SUE SOMEBODY"-- Sterngard Friegen (quoting Thomas Jefferson)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Posts: 19999
Location: FEMA Camp 17 -- Malibu (Hey! You! Get off the lawn!)
Occupation: Schadenfreude artist.
Is Scalia's citation to de Vattel a dog whistle? I fear a Supreme Court that meddles more and more into the raw politics of the United States.

_________________
When there are a finite number of ways to screw something up, Orly Taitz will find an infinite number of ways to do so. (The Sternsig Rule.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am
Posts: 5521
Occupation: retired
What effect will this have on similar laws in other jurisdictions? Any ideas?

_________________
Mark Twain
Quote:
Research shows that 87.666 per cent of all statistics are made up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 23596
esseff44 wrote:
What effect will this have on similar laws in other jurisdictions? Any ideas?


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012 ... -obama.php

According to the article at TPM...

Quote:
The decision is a blow for Republican Gov. Jan Brewer and serves as a warning shot to other state legislatures supportive of similar measures. On one hand it could help Republicans energize conservatives, who are strongly supportive of the law. On the other hand, the decision could help Democrats galvanize Hispanics, who would be disproportionately targeted by the law and broadly oppose it.

_________________
Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams


ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:09 am
Posts: 2527
Location: Virginia
Occupation: Top banjo-scrabble-science fiction professional in the world
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Is Scalia's citation to de Vattel a dog whistle? I fear a Supreme Court that meddles more and more into the raw politics of the United States.


I dunno if he has a clue about what de Vattel means to the birthers. He strikes me as the type to sit in his room thinking about how incredibly wise he is and how much wisdom he should share with the commoners.

Maybe I'm wrong, haha. Never met the man. Maybe he's very jolly.

_________________
STUDYING


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
View new posts | View active topics



Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group