http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/062512_sb1070_scotus/supreme-court-strikes-down-most-sb-1070-provisions/

Dylan Smith
TucsonSentinel.com
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's controversial SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law on Monday, invalidating most of its provisions. The justices did allow police to check the immigration status of those they arrest.

The high court in a 4-3 vote that most of SB 1070's provisions are preempted by federal authority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Dissenting were Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Justice Elena Kagen recused herself from the case because of work she did while U.S. solicitor general.

The 2010 law made it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It requires that police check immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion to believe someone is here illegally.

rest at the link

which may give a glimmer of hope for the ACA ruling - he's not being purely partisan. Of course, he could say "I voted on the liberal side on that, so it's OK to be Republican on the ACA decision" ...

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/?on.cnn=1

"Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’"

I hate her fucking ugly guts.

This is confusing! I have listened to the news all morning. Will the police still be able to arrest any person of Latino decent that they suspect? I think more needs to be ammended here. I know when a police officer stops you they can check your license and check if you are a criminal. I guess in this case they can call into immigration authority and see if they are an illegal immigrant. What do they do if the person is in the process of becomming a US citizen? Does the government make the final decision or can this person still be arrested? Is there a national file of people filing for immigration statis that can be processed immediately. I think these people should have all the rights that have been afforded to other US citizens in the past. Bring us your masses wanting to be free. That doesn't mean come over here and get imprisioned.

But I think If person Is pulled over the officer can check your Immigration status but now they can't pull you over just for being
hispanic and checking papers.They have to have valid reason for pulling you over first.Of course a officer can check Into Immigration status for no reason other than being hispanic If they find another reason to pull you over first.

And the Court thew out the provision making it illegal to be in AZ w/o papers, so they can't charge you with that to give ample time for verifying immigration status before deporting.
I suspect the Court is waiting for someone to actually get profiled and sue before tackling the fourth provision.

that is pulled over as to them being an illegal immigrant they can check their immigration status, or ask for proof of citizenship. All the rest was struck down. Court affirmed the Federal Governments authority to regulate immigration.

Brewer claiming victory proves she is delusional.

is still a problem with this. That provision still needs to be challenged.

separately. It needs to be challenged separately depending on how the law is enacted. I don't agree. The Court should have struck this down too. In my opinion it's unconstitutional as it will lead to racial profiling.

I am impressed that the Chief Justice joined the plurality opinion.

Read it here: http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/documents/doc/062512_sb1070_doc/

-Laelth

It's well worth reading. It is almost persuasive.

-Laelth

But in this case, I was being sincere. I highly recommend reading his dissent.

-Laelth

For one, he spends a significant portion attacking Obama's immigration policies, calling them "lax". For one, deportations are up from the previous administration. Scalia's problems is with his prioritization. An immigration policy that relies on mass deportations is going to fail. We don't have the money, resources, or personnel to make that effective. This is why reform is necessary.

Then he cities an example of Southern states excluding free blacks as an example of states setting their own immigration policy. Besides the problem of citing pro-slavery laws there is problems in having a federal government and individual states having two different immigration policies. For one, states & cities can simply say anyone can come to our city & state. In fact, a city did do this in what largely went unreported that I forgot the specifics. A city in the northeast basically said they won't bother illegal immigrants and the Obama administration sued.

He has truly brought down the respect I had for the Supreme Court, he and his political hack friends. He rails agains illegal immigrants? Scalia? That does not sound like a Native American name... oh yes, his family came here when America still believed in "give me your poor, your tired..." Now it's "give me your immigrants as long as they have suitcases of money." The irony is that he's going off in a very unprofessional and POLITICAL rant agains President Obama, and yet illegal immigration is DOWN since the President took office, AND we have increased the deportation of illegal immigrant criminals by 70%.

Bush did JACK SHIT about immigration. The republicans NEVER do. They know that they get fat donations from the corporations that don't want to stop the flow of dirt cheap labor... what would the slaughter houses do without them??? And he forgets that President Obama didn't give them amnesty or a path to citizenship. He allowed them to continue their lives here, the only lives they've known, as long as they stay out of trouble. Unlike President Reagan and his amnesty for millions of people who actually came here illegally.

And he should never ever ever exercise.

Does he smoke? If not, he should. After all, those damn liberals are anti-smoking.