Following SCOTUS Decison on Arizona Immigration, Homeland Security Suspends Immigration Agreements With Arizona Police
Talk about vindictive … Once again King Obama speaks and disregards the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court and his Oath of office … How’s that “hopey, changey” thing working out for you America?
In yet another act of Executive defiance, Barack Obama’s Homeland Security suspends Immigration agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. They have issued a a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting cases of illegal immigration. The following is an act of a sore loser President. On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws. UNREAL. So much for the rule of law and separation of powers. We have a President who thinks he is King.
The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.
The Lonely Conservative says, why should we be surprised by the actions of the Obama Administration. If this is how they act, when the SCOTUS rules, could you imagine what Obama and his henchman will do of the Court strikes down Obamacare?
So this is what you get when you dare go against Barack Obama, you wind up on his enemies list. As stated at the PJ Tatler, This is a political maneuver designed to punish Arizona. Barack Obama congratulates the Muslim Brotherhood on their victory in the Egyptian Presidency, yet attack a US State and tries to make an example out of them because they dare defy der Obama on enforcing illegal immigration. Obama must be voted out in 2012, can you only imagine the disregard of the people and the US Constitution with a lame duck President?
It also tells us that the administration has given up on winning Arizona, which until recently was considered a swing state, this fall. Obama has written it off, and is now going Soviet on it to make it an example to others. He is essentially kicking Arizona out of whatever is left of the federal government’s border enforcement, declaring to smugglers and traffickers that Arizona is very much on its own.
Supreme Court Decides Arizona Immigration Law S.B. 1070, Struck Down Parts But Upholds Key Immigration Status Check Provision
Today, the US Supreme Court ruled on Arizona Immigration Law S.B. 1070 and struck the provisions dealing with state criminal penalties and other provisions which imposed procedural requirements on illegals in the state. Among the provisions the Court struck is the one requiring that a person be detained if the police officer believes the person is removable. However, the SCOTUS upheld the key Immigration status check provision. Although one has to wonder what good it is if there is no penalty.
By a vote of 6-2, the court voided a provision making it a state crime for an immigrant to fail to carry federal registration papers. By 5-3 votes, it invalidated sections that authorized jail time for illegal immigrants who seek work in Arizona and that gave state and local police more power to arrest immigrants suspected of offenses.
Arizona’s one victory came in the court’s decision to uphold the status-check provision. Federal law already requires immigration authorities to respond to checks from state and local officers, indicating that Congress saw nothing wrong with such “consultation” between arms of government, the court said.
Much, much more and some great analysis at Legal Insurrection.
It would appear Justice Scalia gets it, too bad the majority of the Justices did not.
Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the majority that Arizona’s alien-registration requirement was void, but voted to uphold SB 1070 provisions making it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work and authorizing warrantless arrests of certain aliens. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas each filed separate dissents arguing that SB 1070 should be upheld in its entirety.
The majority “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” Justice Scalia wrote.
Fast & Furious Stonewalling, Obamacare looking Unconstitutional, Failing Economy & Middle East on the Brink … Barack Obama Golfs for 101st time of Presidency
101 and counting …
President Barack Hussein Obama celebrated the Muslin Brotherhood’s Presidential victory in Egypt today with yet another round of golf. This will make Obama’s 101st round of golf since he took office. Millions of Americans are unemployed, the parents of Brian Terry are looking for answer as to their son’s death in connect with ‘Fast & Furious’ and wonder why Obama evoked executive privilege, a majority of American hope that the SCOTUS declares Obamacare Unconstitutional and the Middle East was turned on its ear today with the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood candidate in Egypt. All this, but it did not deter Obama from playing golf.
President Obama waited for the temperature to cool just a bit before heading to the golf course on Sunday.
Obama is golfing at the Fort Belvoir course, according to a White House pool report. The president is golfing with White House chef Sam Kass, staffer Mike Brush and White House trip director Marvin Nicholson, a frequent golf partner of Obama’s.
The temperature at the course is a steamy 89 degrees but a slight breeze makes it feel a little cooler, according to the Weather Channel. Washington is in the midst of a heat wave, with temperatures hitting 100 degrees on Thursday.
This will be the president’s 101st round of golf since entering office according to a count kept by CBS News’s Mark Knoller. He was last on the course on Father’s Day.
Funny, I waited for the temperature to cool off a bit, like millions of Americans to cut the grass. Who is out of touch with the American people?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is predicting “sharp disagreements.” That’s what happens when Justices use political ideology rather than the US Constitution to make a decision.
Within the next couple of weeks the Supreme Court will finally make a decision on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate and Obamacare. The SCOTUS will also make decisions on Arizona’s immigration law, television broadcast indecency enforcement, and a federal law making it a crime to lie about earning high military honors. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said on Friday at a conference hosted by the American Constitution Society at the Capital Hilton, “As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending. So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is predicting “sharp disagreement” as the Supreme Court prepares by month’s end to release some of its most-talked-about rulings, including the constitutionality of the health care law championed by President Obama.
Speaking to a legal conference Friday night in Washington, the oldest member of the high court offered tantalizing hints about where the court may be heading in coming days.
“The term has been more than usually taxing, some have called it the term of the century,” she said in remarks at the American Constitution Society’s annual review of the court. The ACS is a left-leaning legal advocacy and scholarship group.
From Forbes comes the story that based on Intrade, there is a 69.9% chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate in the national healthcare reform act. Correction, Intrade has it up to 73.5%.
Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, Constitutional Law Scholar & President Barack Obama Mentor Says That Obama Misspoke Regarding Comments About SCOTUS
Another bad day for Obama and his “judicial activism” comments … Yet another Obama “Lost in Smallness” moment.
President Barack Obama is going to rue the day when he made the ridiculous comments and vale threats to the Supreme Court Justices regarding “judicial activism” and Obamacare. Emperor Obama actually questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
How bad of a comment was this by Obama, even his former mentor, Harvard Law professor and Constitutional Law scholar Laurence Tribe was forced to say that Obama misspoke. Wow, if Tribe thinks that Obama was one of his best students, I hate to see the not-so good ones who have no concept of “judicial review” and Murbury v. Madison. Or is it just Obama that likes to mislead “We the People”?
Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.
Mr. Tribe, who calls the president was one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”
Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.
“I don’t think anything was gained by his making these comments and I don’t think any harm was done,” Mr. Tribe said, “except by public confusion.”
You don’t think any harm was done, really? If Tribe really thought that no harm was done to Obama and Obama’s credibility he would not be commenting on The One’s misspeak and comment that Obama made was misleading people. This is hardly a ringing Obama endorsement when he has to be bailed out for looking and talking like gaffe prone VOP Joe Biden.
Obama not only had Tribe say he misspoke, but also got spanked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, regarding Obama’s comments. Attorney General Eric Holder says he’ll comply with a federal judge’s request to type three single-spaced pages recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress. While Tribe said that Obama misspoke, Obama minion Eric Holder, actually defended Obama’s comments as appropriate. We can see why so many have called for Holder to resign.
Attorney General Eric Holder defended Obama’s comments today, calling them “appropriate” when he was asked by reporters if he’ll respond to the request for a written explanation by Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the appeals court.
Then there was White House Press Secretary and Obama minion mouth piece Jay Carney further exacerbating the Obama screw up by trying to defend Obama’s actions and words. Could these people torture the English language anymore? Next thing they will be telling us it all depends on what is, is.
Barack Obama Fires Shot Across the SCOTUS Bow … The Supreme Court Will Be Guilty of “Judicial Activism” If They Dare Strike Down Obamacare
Has President Barack Obama have no shame, no “The One” takes shot at intimidating the SCOTUS?
After having passed Obamacare with backroom deal, Corn Husker kickbacks and against the will of the people along a Democrat party partisan vote, Barack Obama now fires a preemptive shot across the bow of the Supreme Court calling it “judicial activism” if they dare strike down Obamacare. How desperate is Obama is he has to sink to such depths? Now the SCOTUS is on Obama’s enemies list. Does Obama understand that he is not a dictator and that the SCOTUS is one of the three branches of government put in place as a checks and balance when a President and Congress act in an UN-Constitutional manner? I guess not. Obama is already setting up the SCOTUS as the evil “unelected group of people” that would dare strike down Obamacare. However, as referenced at the NRO what else could Obama do after the disastrous defense of Obamacare in the SCOTUS last week?
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.
“I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.
Really Mr. President, an “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress”? Unprecedented? Who is this guy kidding? As Doug Ross states, who finds it curious that the arrogant Barack Obama and self-professed Constitutional scholar doesn’t know that the Supreme Court has struck down more than 1,300 laws since the founding of the Republic?
Its one thing to question a decision of the Supreme Court, its quite another thing for a sitting President to question the credibility of the SCOTUS prior to their final decision on such on over-reaching law that would force Americans under the “commerce clause” to buy a commercial product.
Who does not find it ironic and completely ridiculous that Barack Obama would use “judicial activism” as some type of defense when the LEFT loves such activism when it suits their views? President Obama, you may want to brush up on the doctrine of “judicial review”.
Day Two Obamacare & the SCOTUS … Strike Two … Justice Kennedy Says Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship Of Gov’t … Others Ask, What About Being Made to Buy Broccoli & Burial Insurance?
DAY TWO OF OBAMA CARE BEING ARGUED AT THE US SUPREME COURT AND STRIKE TWO FOR OBAMA …
The Obamacare vs. We the People at the SCOTUS was billed as one of the most important court cases in recent history. The federal government thru Obamacare is forcing Americans to buy and “approved” Obama insurance and forcing people into a market, rather than regulating a market. One would have thought that Obama’s legal mouth pieces would have been more prepared. I guess not.
Wow, Solicitor General Verrilli stuttered and stammered his way through his presentation to the SCOTUS like President Obama speaking to the public without a teleprompter. Can you say that day two and the government defending the individual mandate was a complete disaster? YES!!! As stated at Mother Jones, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom. Time after time it appeared that Verrilli was so ill prepared and searched for answers to simple Justice’s questions. As opined at the Daily Caller, Verrilli was asked, If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? One would think that they would have prepared for such. Not so much. However, this is what happens when one is asked to defend the indefensible. One day Obamacare penalty is tax, the next, it is not.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.
Stepping up to the podium, Verrilli stammered as he began his argument. He coughed, he cleared his throat, he took a drink of water. And that was before he even finished the first part of his argument. Sounding less like a world-class lawyer and more like a teenager giving an oral presentation for the first time, Verrilli delivered a rambling, apprehensive legal defense of liberalism’s biggest domestic accomplishment since the 1960s—and one that may well have doubled as its eulogy.
As reported at RCP, Justice Kennedy stated that the “Individual Mandate” would fundamentally change the relationship between the government and “We the People” (VIDEO). BINGO!!! Who would have thought that Justice Kennedy would have been such a skeptic?
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court’s cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
Justice Antonin Scalia asked how the individual mandate was different from forcing Americans to buy broccoli? BTW, 87% of Americans agree with Scalia’s mandate on broccoli.
“If the government can do that, what else can it do?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.
No matter what the outcome is in the SCOTUS, this is going to be damning to Barack Obana in 2012.
A “BIG F’N DEAL” HEADS TO THE SCOTUS …
Today the SCOTUS begins hearing oral arrangements against President Barack Obama’s signature piece of legislation, Obamacare. For the next three days and a total of 6 hours, oral arrangements will be made on the Constitutionality of Obamacre. However, today the SCOTUS will hear whether they have to wait for the mandate to kick in before they can hear the case. That does not occur until 2014. Tomorrow the SCOTUS will hear the arguments of the individual mandate.
Will Obama’s attorneys be wearing “BFD” shirts to the SCOTUS?
President Obama’s signature domestic achievement — and, with it, a big part of his political legacy — is now in the hands of the Supreme Court.
The nine justices on Monday will begin hearing three consecutive days of oral arguments about whether the healthcare law is unconstitutional. The landmark legal challenge threatens to overturn an historic legislative victory, raising the stakes once again in a debate that will help define Obama’s presidency.
The six-hour oral argument is the longest the court has heard in 45 years. And this is the first time in more than 75 years that the court is in a position to strike down a sitting president’s agenda while he runs for reelection.
NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SCOTUS … ANY DECISION IS A LOSE-LOSE FOR BARACK OBAMA.
Rasmussen: 55% Oppose Affirmative Action Policies for College Admissions as SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Case
As the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case of colleges using affirmative action as part of college admissions, a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 55% of Americans oppose using such policies.Just a mere 24% are in favor of applying preferential treatment and affirmative action to college admissions.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 24% of Likely U.S. Voters favor applying affirmative action policies to college admissions. Fifty-five percent (55%) oppose the use of such policies to determine who is admitted to colleges and universities. Twenty-one percent (21%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just last week the SCOTUS agreed to hear a case dealing with affirmative action and college admission.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the controversial case Fisher v. University of Texas. The case comes from Abigail Fisher, a white college student, who sued the University of Texas after she was denied admission.
The current standard of affirmative action usage in college admissions comes from the 2003 Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, discussed by the Ohio State Law Journal, which allows continued use of affirmative action as long as race is not a deciding factor and is only one of many factors in an applicant’s admission. Also noteworthy in the Grutter decision was the inclusion of a prediction that, while affirmative action was still necessary in 2003, it might no longer be valid in 25 years or so.
I believe that the Court should take this opportunity to hasten the end of affirmative action in college admissions and not wait an additional 16 years to let it expire.
Why the 2012 Presidential Election is So Important to Vote Obama Out of Office … Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stepping Down in 2015
A note to all Republicans and right leaning Independents no matter what GOP candidate you favor … ELECTIONS MATTER!!!
Forget about the poor US economy, the 5 million lost employees who simply gave up, the real un/under-emplyment number, the $878 billion wasted stimulus plan, the out of control national debt, and an energy policy that puts politics ahead of jobs and energy independence … “We the People” have just been present with one more huge reason why Barack Obama must be voted out of office in 2012 …
According to the UPI, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Gingburg plans to step down in 2015.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will step down from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 to give President Obama, putatively in his second term, a chance to name a liberal as her successor.
That’s the conclusion of Tom Goldstein, founder and padrone of SCOSTUSBLOG.com, one of the premier Supreme Court litigators in active practice — he’s argued 24 cases before the justices — and
In the swashbuckling , devil-may-care style familiar to those who know him, Goldstein admits his prediction is speculation.
“The odds are good that Justice Ginsburg will retire in the third year of a second Obama term,” he writes in SCOTUSBLOG. “That is only a presumption, and I doubt that the justice herself has made concrete plans. [Obama's] re-election itself is highly uncertain, and much can change in one’s thinking over the next three years.
“Nonetheless, the justice has sent signals that correspond with a likely retirement at that time.”
Ginsburg’s retirement would have nothing to do with her two bouts of cancer, both of which she bested.
Every wonder why the 2012 Presidential election is so important? The United States of America and SCOTUS cannot take Barack Obama appointing two more justices. Previously some Democrats had wanted Bader Ginsburg to step down prior to the 2012 election as they were not confident in Obama’s reelection.