Arizona Immigration Law Likely to Be Upheld

[Danzig]

for one, what does “basic notions of fairness” (said by obama) have to do with anything? especially anything regarding legality? we're now supposed to decide what's constitutional based on fairness? and who exactly will decide what's fair? lol and to think a person supposedly versed in constitutional law said that.

and what about this:

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace. ( if it's commonplace, why is it an issue? if many jurisdictions already do this, why is it an issue that it's being made mandatory? and if it's common practice, the only thing being changed is making it happen every time, how does being made mandatory suddenly mean it's not constitutional?)

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law required merely that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and left enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not,” he said. (good point)



“So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. (excellent question)



and everyone keep in mind, part of obamacare is the requirement that it not cover those here illegally. so every state will have to have access to databases that will help indicate if someone is here illegally. will the administration than argue against it's own rules? lol now, that's a conundrum, isn't it?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for one, what does “basic notions of fairness” (said by obama) have to do with anything? especially anything regarding legality? we're now supposed to decide what's constitutional based on fairness? and who exactly will decide what's fair? lol and to think a person supposedly versed in constitutional law said that.

and what about this:

Most of the argument on Wednesday concerned the part of the law requiring state officials to check immigration status. Several justices said states were entitled to enact such provisions, which make mandatory inquiries to federal authorities from local police officers that are already commonplace. ( if it's commonplace, why is it an issue? if many jurisdictions already do this, why is it an issue that it's being made mandatory? and if it's common practice, the only thing being changed is making it happen every time, how does being made mandatory suddenly mean it's not constitutional?)

Chief Justice Roberts said the state law required merely that the federal government be informed of immigration violations and left enforcement decisions to it. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who is here illegally or not,” he said. (good point)



“So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico?” Justice Antonin Scalia responded. (excellent question)



and everyone keep in mind, part of obamacare is the requirement that it not cover those here illegally. so every state will have to have access to databases that will help indicate if someone is here illegally. will the administration than argue against it's own rules? lol now, that's a conundrum, isn't it?

The arguments that Obama's lawyer made were so absurd that even Sotomayor told the lawyer, "You can see it’s not selling very well—why don’t you try to come up with something else?." She went on to say, "I’m terribly confused by your answer. O.K.?