Midknight Review -- new and revised: 2B or not 2B : the significance - if any - of the Supreme Court's convoluted decision.

Understand that Section 2B was the section of SB1070 that took up most of the time in oral arguments, and it was supported by all members of the court (8 - 0 with Kagan recusing herself) as being Constitutional.

<<<<< Speaking for myself: I have no intentions of ever pledging allegiance to this man.

In a dissenting opinion, we have Justice Thomas offering this summary of that section of the law:

Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 provides that, when Arizona law enforcement officers reasonably suspect that a person they have lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested is unlawfully present, “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person” pursuant to the verification procedure established by Congress in 8 U. S. C. §1373(c). Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11–1051(B) (West 2012).

Nothing in the text of that or any other federal statute prohibits Arizona from directing its officers to make immigration-related inquiries in these situations. To the contrary, federal law expressly states that “no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from” federal officials “information regarding the immigration status” of an alien. 8 U. S. C. §1644. And, federal law imposes an affirmative obligation on federal officials to respond. (look for Justice Thomas' opinion in the PDF found here.)

With this reading, it appears that Arizona State law enforcement can only collect information; they do have the right to ask and pass this information on to ICE or whoever. Of course, the Feds can refuse to act upon this information. In the end, the decision to allow for 2B appears to be a not so funny joke of a decision.

Sorry, but I am no longer a fan of Justice Roberts. I had thought him to be more intelligent that me. Turns out, even I can see the mockery of this judgment.

In the common vernacular, he and the other Libs on this court have said this:

Go ahead and ask, but you do not have the right to do anything else and the Clown we have for a president has the right to ignore Federal law and do whatever he desires with regard to border security. He rules and you are nothing.

The Stated Nonsense from the Left now includes these Progressive goals:

July 2, 2008, Obama had this to say: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

MICHELLE OBAMA: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

“ . . . . . . they have become a generation of activists possessed with that most American of ideas – that people who love their country can change it.” -- Obama the Radical

On September 30, Van Jones told MSNBC "I think everybody should hold onto your seats. October is going to be the turning point when it comes to the progressive fight back."

Midknight Review -- new and revised

2B or not 2B : the significance - if any - of the Supreme Court's convoluted decision.

1 comment:

copyright policy of the original Midknight Review