‘You Can See It’s Not Selling Very Well’: SCOTUS Skeptical of Government’s Anti-Arizona Immigration Argument
- Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:30pm by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
AP
The Supreme Court justices on Wednesday signaled they would let Arizona enforce its controversial immigration law, with both liberal and conservative members of the court sounding skeptical of the Obama administration’s claims that the law is an overreach of state authority.
The Hill reported:
The ideologically diverse group of justices pummeled Solicitor General Donald Verrilli with a morning full of questions, expressing serious doubts to the government’s claim that Arizona cannot require state law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense.
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman to be seated on the bench, to Verrilli after the solicitor general had delivered a significant portion of his argument. “I’m terribly confused by your answer.”
According to the Washington Post, Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli “what could possibly be wrong” with Arizona officers checking the legal status of a detained person and passing the information on to the federal government — if federal authorities don’t want to pursue deportation, they don’t have to, Roberts said.
Justice Antonin Scalia seemed particularly in favor of the law, asking at one point, “What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the authority to defend your borders?” according to Politico.
But it wasn’t entirely smooth-sailing for the law’s proponents, the Post reported:
The justices seemed to have more concerns with other portions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which has led to similar attempted crackdowns in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana.
That could lead to the court to allow some parts of the Arizona law to go into effect, but restrict others.
Roberts told Paul D. Clement, the former Bush administration solicitor general who is representing Arizona, that the state seemed to have authorized “significantly greater sanctions” than the federal immigration law allows by imposing criminal penalties on immigrants who seek work.
Clement acknowledged the federal government places the burden on employers with illegal workers but said that did not mean states could not impose sanctions on the employees themselves.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case due to her past involvement with it as Obama’s solicitor general, opening up the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. If such a split were to happen, the previous appeals court decision would stand, and S.B. 1070 would not take effect.
The court is expected to announce its final decision in June.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 595 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 393 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 378 Comments
Faith
Arab-Muslim Character to Join DC Comics‘ ’Green Lantern’ Series Read More- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 393 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 420 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (51)
groundzero
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 12:04amI’ve lost my confidence that the Supreme Court would do what is RIGHT for the country they live and work for. Should we as American citizen start recall of judges? It really doesn’t matter about the LAW anymore in this country. I could not believe that Roberts a judge of the USA would say “If federal authorities don’t want to pursue deportation, THEY DON’T HAVE TO. UNBELIEVABLE!! I thought it was their JOB to UPHOLD our LAWS not pick out which ones they like!!!!!! RECALL the judges that don’t want to uphold OUR constitution NOT other countries LAWS. I’m really sick of this crap.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 2:58amGROUNDZERO:
Report Post »Just to put into context. Roberts made that statement in response to Verrilli arguing that the US Government does not have sufficient resources to handle incarceration and deportation. Verrilli‘s point was in effect we can’t handle the volume and shouldn’t be forced to handle more. Note that Roberts’ statements are not in quotation, but I thought his comment was more along the lines of if you can’t handle the deportations you are given by the state, then you don’t have to deport them. Bottom line in SCOTUS cannot force the fed gov to support the laws unless they are brought before them via suit etc. I think without knowing the dialog I would have drawn the same conclusion….
socialism.rocks
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 11:19pmmerp
Report Post »FedUpAlready
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 10:15pmAlthough the citizens of Arizona appear not to have standing to challenge The Federal Government, on this issue, I believe anyone being injured, or having their property rights violated by an illegal would set precedent. The Federal Gov. is responsible for the enforcement of Immigration laws and, when not enforced, must give the state the right to enforce themselves.
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 6:58pmKagan recused herself fro this and not obamacare? Pfffht
Report Post »Jackers
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 7:27pmI am sick and tired of all of the pundits on FOX News calling this a “controversial” law… Since when is enforcing our nation’s laws “controversial”? Since when is protecting the good citizens of Arizona “controversial”?
I consider mass illegal immigration and all of the rampant crime and corruption that comes with it to be controversial, and the American people should not be forced to pay hundreds of billions of hard-earned tax dollars a year to support this illegal invasion from south of the border.
What FOX would consider “controversial,” I consider common sense; and it’s time that our “public servants” start practicing common sense and doing their jobs.
Open borders? It’s all about cheap labor for the corporations/Republicans and cheap votes for the Democrats; and it’s all leading to a North American Union for the “free flow of goods, services and people.” It’s all a part of the “Open Society/One World Order” agenda… Great for our royal ruling global elites at the top; not so great for the rest of us.
Our federal government has failed the American people by deliberately turning a blind eye to this ongoing crisis and a deaf ear to the tens of millions of Americans demanding border security.
Our federal government has refused to perform one of its most basic duties in securing our borders and protecting the safety and prosperity of the American people… And by doing so, all of our lives are increasingly and unnecessarily at ri
Report Post »lovenfl3
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 9:02pmAt least she did on this one, but I agree she should do so on Obamacare as well. This is amazing to see our government actually suing states. This administration is the most pathetic thing I’ve ever witnessed. Another 4 years and we’ll have a government so big, there will be no more private sector, of course that’s also their goal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJC5Zw-ggrc
Report Post »Magyar
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 6:50pmA ray of sunshine in an otherwise dark and stormy sky. Ironically, after the SG Donald Verrilli is fired in November, he’ll still find employment at some high powered law firm… He shouldn’t be hired as an entry-level public defender!
Report Post »Living In NYC
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 6:00pmYou can tell that Verrilli never worked a day in the private sector. Typical do nothing, know nothing educational elitist who thinks he know all because he has been pushing kids around all his life who never questioned him!
Hey Verrilli welcome to the real world! You have never been in the real world and can’t compete just like your boss and his educational elitists at the Playhouse at 1600! No wonder the federal goverment is playing hooky these guys couldn’t manage a lemonade stand!
0 for 2 Verrilli baby you’re a real loser!
Report Post »johnpaulkuchtajr
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 6:33pmHey, I’m no fan of this lawyer or his boss; but, give the poor bugger the benefit of the doubt.
He may be a fine attorney, all things being equal; however, when your boss shoves a platter full of turd sandwiches across the table and tells you to go sell them to the nine justices of SCOTUS, that would make just about ANY attorney look bad.
First the outrageously unconstitutional Obamacare, now he has to try to defeat the AZ attempt to inject sanity into the non-enforcement of immigration laws.
The guy can’t catch a break!
Report Post »Living In NYC
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 7:08pmJohn, I would agree with you, but when Justice Roberts asked him what a sovereign state was he unable to answer. So, I would say he will ill-prepared or does not have a broad vocabularfy.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:55pmIf a state cannot protect itself from an illegal invader no matter how cuddly and cute they look, then who can we protect ourselves from? As long as Arizona does not go above the Federal laws, the the Federal government has no standing.
I pray that the Supreme Court does not take individual state sovereignty away, otherwise we have just entered a dictatorship. Look at the EPA, they already are forcing their will on companies.
Report Post »IndyGuy
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:49pmPerhaps this Supreme court understands the Constitution just a tad better than Obama and Holder…
Report Post »akairey
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:55pmbut how can that be? Obama was a professor of the constitution! He’s the messiah!
Report Post »Living In NYC
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 6:03pmObama was nothing more than substitute professor..he was never on staff! No wonder this guy doesn’t know squat…I understand his GPA was barely a “C”!
Report Post »Bill Rowland
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 7:46amSweet Old Barack and Holdup have stated they will only enforce laws they approve of. If they don‘t agree with the law they feel they don’t have to enforce it. Illegals registered to vote and you are not required to show ID at the polls. Remember Chicago style “Vote early, Vote often.” and since Uncle Joe died before he could vote, be sure and cast a vote for him. Sweet Old barack is counting on those votes in November.
OMG 2012
Report Post »geonj
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:48pmkagen recuses herself on this one, but the same reasoning doesn’t apply to obamacare?
Report Post »grannyjojo
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:39pmI am hopeful, very hopeful and my prayers are with the SCOTUS upholding the Arizona law. I do know that anything can happen between now and June though and I will keep my prayers going UNTIL the SCOTUS actually comes out with the decision…and this holds true with obamacare. “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess”
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:35pmAs a “constitutional law scholar”, you’d think Obama would be smarter about what he considers constitutional.
Report Post »KangarooJack
Posted on April 26, 2012 at 12:40amHis hubris gets in the way.
Report Post »dadsrootbeer
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:34pmThis radical adminstrations goal is to take power away from individuals and states. That is why there are mutiple court cases going on right now. Love that hope and change from the socialist.
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:23pmSee…MIRACLES happen!!! Can’t believe it — some justice at last. Onward !!!!! We need a lot more of them !!!
Report Post »slidder
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:19pmA State doig the Federal Governments Job and gets sued by the Government! If WE do not change Direction in November Liberals will have the chance they need to change the fabric Our Nation was founded on and that must not be allowed to happen!
Report Post »wboehmer
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:06pmSeems that the Worst-President-Ever Øbama Administration should be a little more careful about what it takes before the Supreme Court . . .
2 for 2 now – just making Øbama look like a loser.
Oh, wait . . . he is a loser.
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:14pmThat is gonna leave a mark. Obammer can’t have the states enforcing immigration laws-cause Obammer needs to count on the votes from the illegal aliens for re-election (don’t need identification to vote-remember?)
Report Post »Rohawk
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:30pmI think he may be taking unconstitutional stances on these cases to stir up his only remaining base (illegal aliens and those who want free healthcare) so he can say he needs more time to reform the government (which he still presents himself as an outsider of)
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:39pm@ wboehmer
Well put.
I’m not sure Obama is THE worst President.
Report Post »Warren G. Harding
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
Abe Lincoln
Jimmy Carter
It would be close. He is a contender.
suz
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:02pmthis sounds like rationale has made a return to the arguments for upholding the Constitution — that the government is there to PROTECT OUR BORDERS! i won’t hold my breath, though. i’ll wait for the final word on this and health care.
but i can pray.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:58pmLet it be one more body blow against the corrupt and communist administration of Obama. In the end this matter needs to be settled – we need to seal the border as firmly as possible; I heard on the radio the other night – Jim Bohanan (Mon or Tues, of this month) that the Federal governments case centers on the topic of “America has to allow the unemployed of other nations entry or those nations will face economic collapse.”
In short this centers around the ideology of a world governance; the truth coming out at last.
Report Post »islamhater
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:05pmAmerica was set up for the states to run the country you know THE PEOPLE…
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:58pmI love it. The Obama goons are getting their asses handed to them in front of the Supreme Court. Looks like even the Supreme progs don’t want us to have open borders. Oh and don’t forget hard working Americans of all skin colors who have to foot the bill. Dollars and cents crosses all ethnic and minority boundaries.
Report Post »hi
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:09pmI bet they want this to happen right now so the minorities that are here already wil vote for him.
Report Post »mrsmileyface
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:56pmEven with the 4 liberals on the bench you cant sell this stinky bull no matter who you are.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:56pmGood for Justice Sotomayor.
Did I say that out-loud?
Report Post »hi
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 5:08pmI bet she doesn’t recuse herself from the healthcare debate. She was involved in that too. I think she is just doing it here, so she looks better when she doesn’t do it in the more important case.
Report Post »Lesbian Packing Hollow Points
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:56pmConsidering that if the SCOTUS struck SB 1070, they would also have to strike a large swatch of federal immigration law as well, because 1070 EXACTLY COPIES FEDERAL LAW which gives states JUST such authority to act in regards to national immigration policy.
Here’s hoping all of the reporting requirements stand and illegals will start “self-deporting”.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:54pmYou’re creating quite reputation, there, ‘solicitor general.’ Fail, fail, fail. And good for America!
Report Post »HKS
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:45pmLiberals would do anything to pile on those illegals, slaves make great supporters if ya just throw them a small bone or two. Liberals know that and that is their base. So I would suspect they will continue to block controlling the boarders for that reason. The states get to pay the bills so it’s like free votes. Is this a great country or what, that Obama is one smart cookie.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:42pmThis solicitor general reminds me of Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons.
Report Post »lawrench
Posted on April 25, 2012 at 4:42pm“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. ” …. “He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. ”
Declaration of Independence 1776
Report Post »