home

Monday Morning Open Thread

The Supreme Court issued its decision on Arizona SB 1070 "papers, please" law. the upshot, most got struck down but Arizona law enforcement officials can report undocumented persons to the feds.

Of particular note is Justice Scalia's bizarre rant in dissent:

Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding [that the national government has supreme jurisdiction over immigration policy]? [...] Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the Convention produced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously guarded[. ...] Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Never before in my memory has a justice questioned that ""[t]he Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. See Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10 (1982)[.]"

Until today.

Open Thread.

< Supreme Court Invalidates Mandatory Life Without Parole for Juveniles | The SCOTUS and ACA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Well Scalia (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    I think it's pretty clear that there are all sorts of things happening today which would have made states stay out of the Union if they'd known about it in advance.  At the top of my head, banning slavery comes to mind.  Luckily we don't feel particularly bound by that notion today.

    Also, it seems like he is arguing against the right to have any kind of federal immigration policy.  To quote one of our commenters here - claptrap!

    To be intellectually fair (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    There was a constitutional amendment on the slavery issue, as you may know.  Slavery and the Fugitive Slave Laws were upheld, not abolished, by the Supreme Court.

    Parent
    true (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by CST on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    it's just the wording of his argument that made me say that.  He doesn't seem to be making an intellectual argument so much as an emotional one that "the founders would be turning in their graves if they knew... blah blah".  It just struck me as a tea-party type rant about what the "original states" would have done that has little bearing on life as we know it today.

    Parent
    While the Constitution (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:43:23 PM EST
    has some flexibility built into it, the Founders couldn't think of everything. Yes, they intended to make amendments  somewhat difficult to enact, but it's evolved into something that makes amending the Constitution practically impossible.

    Also, I understand the thought that went into having each State represented by two Senators but the way the population grew made the ensuing model a sick mutation of their original intent.

    Ditto for lifetime appointments.  


    Parent

    To ne fairer (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    The Congress has the enumerated power over "Naturalization."

    This was an easy case really, even the Section 2 part because the US did not argue equal protection.

    Parent

    I completely agree (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    once you understand that in 18th Century legal terminology, "naturalization" includes all of what we now call "immigration policy," and not merely (as the term now is understood) the process by which someone who was not born in the U.S. can become a citizen.

    Parent
    The fact that (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    He was actually responding to Obama's recent decision to allow "DREAM kids" stay here, and not the actual case at hand, is even a little more bizarre.

    What's going on here? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:56:57 PM EST
    A Zimmerman post that's been up since before 8am without a comment?  

    Did they all leave at once?  Has the novelty worn off?  Or is this truly the end of times?

    The GZ fan club... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    is off baking a cake with a file in it at the moment, please stand by MileHi;)

    Parent
    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, cake. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    Dare we reopen the debate (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:43:17 PM EST
    by, instead, offering . . . pie?

    Parent
    Only if it is a chocolate cream one! (none / 0) (#84)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    With extra whipped cream on top.  

    Parent
    His attorney filed a motion for bail... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by magster on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:11:05 PM EST
    ... acknowledging GZ was wrong, and Jeralyn then deleted the motion.

    Seriously, seems like GZ's attorney is conceeding on GZ's "mistake" too readily.

    Parent

    Ah. Attorney decided not to fall on his (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    sword for his client.  

    Parent
    Thank you,god. (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    Shhhhh! :) (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:21:23 PM EST
    Scalia is a malevolent gasbag (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    Someone roast a Polish on his grill already.    Interestingly, we're catching a matinee of AMERICAN IDIOT at The Orpheum on Wednesday.  Antonin could have his own spin-off. (The Orpheum is sweet tho, gorgeous theater, and practically door to door on BART for us.)

    For those who are wondering (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:25:44 PM EST
    I'm sick of the Obama SUX angle some of you take on EVERY issue.

    Please take that stuff to the Zimmerman threads please.

    All you folks rooting for Obama's demise and willing to twist facts to forward your views are not welcome in my threads.

    I thought I made that clear before.

    I want to make it clear again.

    Yeah I am a censoring prick.

    That's how I roll.

    There is a whole mess of threads for you folks to do your thing that do not involve me.

    Take it there.

    I even created a special (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    Obama SUX open thread for you.

    Enjoy.

    Parent

    I really wish you would (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    apply some of this energy to an rxigesis re "Citizens United.". Is there anything Congress can do as opposed to "will do") to limit  politicsll speech?

    Parent
    Is this in the AP style book? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    Because I sure can't find it.  :)

    Parent
    Has Scalia become an embarrassment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:04:17 PM EST
    even to the other arch-conservatives?  Note that neither Roberts, Thomas nor Alito, who did dissent from the majority decision, joined Scalia's Fox-echoing rant.

    Maybe we can cross our fingers (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    and hope this is an emotional outlet for his frustration over the ACA ruling.

    I wish. But highly unlikely, IMO. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:50:06 PM EST
    Agreed, this rant (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    was likely just a 'warm-up' for Scalia.  His opinions more often than not seem like polemics masquerading as jurisprudence.  And, it is not something that could be attributed to the ravages of old age, since his rails  have been the hallmark of his long and destructive body of work.  However, I do think that he will have to go some on ACA to top his nasty screed in Roemer v Evans (1996).

    Perhaps we can somehow excuse his senate confirmation vote of 98 to 0, on the basis that 1986 was a different environment, but how do we understand that in 2004, Senator Harry Reid initially supported Scalia as a replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist? Reid said he did not agree with Scalia all the time, but he agreed with the brilliance of his mind--an attribute that, to me, is present in quantities that are much less than meets the eye.  Of those justices of his stripe, I would go with Alito in the smarts department.

    Parent

    The Bush v. Gore progeny (none / 0) (#8)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    When  the majority jumped into the "political thicket" to be vote counters, some of them--IMO--threw caution & any semblance of judicial philosophy to the wind.  No longer did precedent count for much for a Scalia, it seems, when you can take a swipe at the opposition represented by the President...wooo wooo, the rush it must give the adolescent of all varieties to jab & rant in an opinion. It matters not that longstanding preemption precedent in immigration structure & most matters touching on national security typically has classic conservative support as well.  Nope. No longer.  Justice Scalia seems to have traded it all--as time goes on & he switches some of his earlier views too--traded it all to get the ends he wants.  Fascinating.

    Here ya go. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    • First, a presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
    • Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
    • Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
    • Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and appointments, especially to the courts.
    • And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

    James Fallows - The Atlantic

    Parent
    Fallows misses (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    that the Dems actually controlled the Senate for 4 years, 2 of those while Obama was president. And he also misses that Obama didn't make his first appointment to the bench (filling those vacancies) until 6 months after taking office, and when there's no way all those appointments would have been blocked.

    Parent
    "Control?" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    I almost said "There you go again.". Whether it was cats or Senators, we all know that the reality of a Lieberman, Nelson, the former Senator from Arkansas & Pryor, & occasionally Landrieu made that control or fall--in-line a mirage that could not be sustained given current filibuster rule.

    Parent
    WAAAHHH (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:22:08 PM EST
    "Presidentin' is HARD!  You mean they expect me to make hard choices and fight?"  

    or, another of my favorites:

    "Just give him time - he'll get it done!"

    Give it a rest.  The first 6 months of the administration, the Republicans were completely down.  There is NO way he would have had so many vacancies left open on the federal bench (and of course, he is on track to actually have MORE vacancies than when he took office.

    I'll say it for you - "There you go again with the lame excuses."

    Parent

    Ha...no comlainin' from me (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    only pointing out the misleading characteristic of your suggestion that the WH or the organizational Dems had "control" is not accurate.  But, your word games & play is entertaining.

    I particularly look forward to your hard-sounding responses to change to offense.  Good ploy...inaccurate, nonetheless.


    Parent

    Denial (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:12:27 PM EST
    Just ain't a river in Egypt.

    Parent
    And the sun (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    rises in the west, right?

    You really, really aren't this unsophisticated about political realities.  So stop the agitprop, or whatever it is you're doing.

    Parent

    You would know best (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    This is false (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    I hope the rest of you understand this is false.

    Parent
    Again (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    What counts is VOTES, not words.

    The vote was 5 for the per curiam, 4 in dissent.

    There was no 7-2.

    Neither Souter nor Breyer concurred in ANY PART of the poer curiam.

    Your statement is false.

    But more importantly, Souter aand Breyer VEHEMENTLY disagreed with stopping the recount.

    Your comments are utterly false.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    It is dicta.

    They did not vote to find a EPC violation.

    If they did they could have concurred in the per curiam.

    They did not.

    Indeed, if you read the whole of Breyer's opinion, he says if that is an EPC violation, then every election is since they iuse different voting mechanisms.

    Most importantly, though, they vehemently disagreed with stopping the recount.

    Your comments are false.


    Parent

    may implicate (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    VOTES.

    Breyer did not join the per curiam opinion.

    He did not find a violation.

    that's the way courts work.

    Look, we can quote the whole damn thing if you want and it does not matter.

    What did he vote for?

    Parent

    Decisions are based upon recorded votes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    Votes.  Not earlier discussions (which may involve all sorts of matters.)

    What is your issue here, Esteel?  Is it important for you to try to find different number for the decision?  Unless I'm missing something ( or unless this is a tempest-in- teapot argument grown large), I'm at a loss to see where you are headed here.  Bush v. Gore was offensive in resolution to many people for the disregard of precedent...on top of that, a mere 5 to 4 decision, grounded in political affiliation, was a step too far.

    Parent

    Bush v Gore was when this country went off (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:40:07 PM EST
    the cliff.

    Parent
    Obama screwed up too! (4.25 / 4) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:08:26 PM EST
    na-na na-na-na

    You really do chime in whenever there is a positive defense made of the president don't you?

    Nonetheless, what leads you to believe this is true:

    there's no way all those appointments would have been blocked

    clairvoyance into the goings on of capitol hill?

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    I abhor cheerleading for one side when facts are misstated or are outright lies.

    You cannot seriously make an argument about the Supreme Court and judicial vacanices unless you look at the total picture.

    Or unless you believe in pixie dust and fairies and not things like reality.

    Parent

    Then stop cheerleading falsehoods (3.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    as you did in this thread.

    Parent
    What misstated facts/outright lies? (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    I thought the post and comments flowing from it were about the SC?  What relevance does the "total picture" have??  He's not moving the courts....?  You still can't really know this:

    there's no way all those appointments would have been blocked

    I'm just bustin' your chops a little here.....you are of course entitled to your opinion.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    Some people don't like things like "facts" when it comes to their idol.

    Parent
    This is emblematic of your contributions (4.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:25:46 PM EST
    You treat as "fact" that 7 justices voted to stop the recount in Florida.

    I do not know if this is due to your ignorance or animus or both.

    But I do know you are wrong an amazing amount of the time.

    Parent

    Just tryin' to be like you (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:14:19 PM EST
    You need more knowledge (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    intelligence and forthrightness for that.

    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    Denial and all that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    If you are wondering if I am picking on you, you need not.

    I am.

    I do not like your style of commenting.

    I'll point out your mistakes at every turn.

    Parent

    Even Gore admitted (none / 0) (#87)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:19:29 PM EST
    their argument to count some of the votes was flawed.
    Your forthrightness.. not.

    Parent
    You left out some things (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    1. Fallows called this a "game" you can play.  Although he thinks he is citing fact, he is improvising here.

    2. He's even corrected the headline

    Midnight update: This item went up three hours ago with a more blunt-instrument headline than it should ever have had: "5 Signs the United States is Undergoing a Coup." I used the word "coup" in a particular way in the longer item this was drawn from. Using it in the headline implies things I don't mean. Through the past decade, there has been a radical shift in the "by any means necessary" rules of political combat, as I describe. Previous conservative administrations have nominated previous conservative Justices -- but not radical partisans, happy to overthrow precedent to get to the party-politics result they want. That is the case I mean to make. And I hope the upcoming health care ruling ends up being evidence on the other side


    Parent
    No, I didn't leave anything out. My post was (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    based on the original at the time I received it.  I don't have to go back and re-read everything someone has written to see if they've changed their headline.  

    You just love to try to find something wrong with every post you might have some disagreement with.  

    The facts of the post are still the same and are still true, like it or not.

    Parent

    Alito's concurrence/dissent (none / 0) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    I found this line at the beginning interesting:

    Because state police powers are implicated here, our precedents require us to presume that federal law does not displace state law unless Congress' intent to do so is clear and manifest. I do not believe Congress has spoken with the requisite clarity to justify invalidation of§5(C).

    Could Alito be a yes vote on ACA?

    Scalia aside, let's hear it for sanity. (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:31:16 PM EST
    A good day.

    Per curiam on ruling upholding Citizens United (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by magster on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:03:12 PM EST
    was a bad one. Doubling down on "corporations are people my friend!!"

    Parent
    I woulda liked... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    all of the bastard AZ law struck down...looks like they'll still be allowed to harass people for papers at will.  Which I suppose is/was going to happen no matter what the SC said, its not like you can stop a guy with a gun and badge and arrest powers from demanding papers.

    I guess that's just a way of life now, ya need papers and a SSN to take a p*ss.  Always struck me as inherently unamerican...and what elevated us from the rest of the world pack, one didn't need to carry papers at all times.  Race to the bottom.

    Parent

    The "show me the papers" section may (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    be struck down later, based on proof of how it is applied.  Kennedy opinion says lower courts shouldn't have done it at injunction stage of proceedings.  

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:21:02 PM EST
    This is a big loss for Arizona.

    they basically can't stop brown people.

    Parent

    Related matter: Hath Romney spake? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    The reported timing earlier today has Mr. Romney visiting Arizona  today. The combo of words he uses in giving his reaction at the microphones before him may be hard to understand...Uralic-Altaic derivative, maybe.

    Parent
    AZ law enforcement may still stop (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    people "who happen to be brown" but are driving a vehicle not ostensibly currently registered, license plate light no working, someone in vehicle not wearing a seatbelt, etc.  

    Parent
    But they;ll have to stop (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    everyone and ask everyone for "papers. please."

    Stats are going to be a big part of this.

    At this point, Arizona is on a path to big civil judgments against them.

    I think SB 1070 is basically finished now.

    Parent

    Already being done in Texas (none / 0) (#88)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:24:46 PM EST
    A couple of years at least. A sien net vs a gill net.

    Parent
    They basically can't stop... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:31:52 PM EST
    brown people "legally", call me a skeptic but I see the feds having a hard time enforcing that one.  The NYPD violate the constitutional rights of brown people at the rate of about one per minute, 24/7/365.  If not all up in their papers, then just all up in their pockets.

    The law and what cops can get away with are two very different things, in practice out on the street.  But at least it isn't codified legit anymore, I guess that's something...in AZ.  NYC a whole 'nother tyrannical matter.

    Parent

    And will lose a lot of money because of it (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    The NYPD approach was smarter in that it is not invoked as law, but police policy.

    Arizona;s mistake was passing a law.

    The SCOTUS opinion puts them on fair notice.

    Parent

    I gotcha... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:48:09 PM EST
    litigators start your engines...bankrupt the forces of tyranny!  

    Pardon my ignorance, but if AZ repeals the law on their own, and just make it police policy instead, are the brown-skinned then f*cked with less recourse?  

    Not to mention big civil awards and settlements haven't slowed NYC down in their brand of dirty...  

    Parent

    in either case (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:50:18 PM EST
    this ruling does not give them the ability to do that.  I'm not sure if what you're saying is possible, but if it were, it's something they could be doing before passing this law either way.

    Parent
    Which is what I was trying to get at.... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    the police can and will do whatever the f*ck they want or what they are told to do by their immediate superiors, the only question is whether the victim has grounds for a lawsuit.

    Parent
    Civil rights division was (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:30:46 PM EST
    Lost in a dice game.
    We got 100k cops on the street in lieu.

    Parent
    Actually yes (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    A local government may be sued for (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983 even for a "policy" but a state cannot, as under current SCOTUS jurisprudence, a "state" is not a "person" under the statute.  Funny ain't it.  

    Parent
    Speak English! (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    You're confusing me with your legalese;)

    Lemme try to get this straight...a locality is a person, a corporation is a person, but a state isn't a person?  I'm so twisted I'm not sure if I'm a person...I bleed and breath but that doesn't appear to be a requirement for personhood;)  

    Parent

    Here's the case: (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:19:10 PM EST
    After Tulia and a few others (none / 0) (#90)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:34:49 PM EST
    Texas pushed those federal grants to border enforcement.
    Scott can tell you all about it, and how Perry is a moderates as well.

    Parent
    Not so sure. It is very difficult to (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    prove disproportionate enforcement if the there is probable cause for the stop irrespective of ethnicity of the driver.  Law enforcement can't enforce motor vehicle code as to each driver on the road at any given time.  

    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    Just heard that the Feds (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    have told ICE to not cooperate with the provision that the SC upheld.

    Constitutional crisis anyone??

    Um what? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:19:50 PM EST
    Arizona can report and the feds can ignore.

    What constitutional crisis?

    Are you sure you understand (a) SB 1070 Section 2; (b) the Constitution and (c) today's ruling?

    I'm thinking you are batting 0 for 3.

    Parent

    So much for the rule of law (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    And here I was thinking you were an Officer of the Court.

    So sorry. My mistake.

    Parent

    You have to understand (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    what the rule of law was determined to be before you can lament its passing.

    Your comment demonstrated you do not understand what happened today.

    Parent

    When a federal official tells the troops (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    to not cooperate with the local's about a law that has been declared constitutional by the SC  then I think I know all I need to know.

    Hopefully millions more will join me.

    Parent

    You simply don't know (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:13:08 PM EST
    The law that was upheld permits Arizona law enforcement officials to REPORT to the federal officials and nothing more.

    Arizona law can not require federal officials to do anything (and vice versa BTW.)

    That, my friend,is the rule of law.

    Parent

    No, BTD (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    That is no more the rule of law than allowing a fire department to ignore a reported fire is the rule of law.

    Parsing words and taking sophomoric positions won't win.

    Parent

    Neither will (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:23:52 PM EST
    utter ignorance such as yours.

    Parent
    Which law will you agree that the Right (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 12:03:48 AM EST
    should not cooperate with the government over??

    What is this, "Wack a mole/law?"

    Parent

    BTW - Keep your commentators straight. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    Rational thought has overtaken (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    Justice Kennedy, at least in the immigration case.  Hopefully,* he will apply the same approach to the ACA.

    * See A.P. Stylebook.  

    I'm more suprised (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:45:49 PM EST
    about chief justice Roberts.

    Parent
    Don't care what AP says (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    It's still WRONG.

    Parent
    Re moving Barnes Collection to (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Philadelphia, was Ed Rendell one of the key figures who made this happen?  See "The Art of the Steal."  

    Back to the Whitey files (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 04:38:37 PM EST
    So a few weeks ago his girlfriend had her day in court and was sentanced to 8 years in prison for aiding him.  Today, Bulger is saying that "he had a deal with the government that protected him from prosecution and that agreement still holds, meaning that the extensive federal case against him -- which includes allegations of 19 murders -- should be dropped."

    This is gonna be interesting...  Meanwhile his former partner in crime, Stephen Flemmi, that is currently in proson for murder, is "eager to testify".

    Whitey question, CST. (none / 0) (#92)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:53:23 PM EST
    Okay, I admit it. Most of what I think I know about Whitey I got from watching The Departed.The movie, however, did not have a respectable brother, unlike real life.

    So, was Whitey's brother (James?) ever found to have helped his brother remain at large? IIRC, it was thought by some that the brother knew Whitey's whereabouts. Do we know if that is true?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    we don't know.

    But do you mean Billy Bulger?  (James is Whitey's real name.)

    Really, Billy Bulger was utterly respectable.  He was a very tough pol, but I'm not aware that he ever came close to breaking any law or any ethics rule.

    My guess is he was extremely careful NOT to know where his brother was.  (Even if he did, I'm not about to condemn him for that, but I strongly suspect he managed things so he couldn't know.)

    I do very much hope for a trial of Whitey, though, because there's oh so much interesting stuff that might come out that will make many powerful people in Boston extremely uncomfortable (though probably some of the most interesting are dead now).

    Billy was/is incredibly smart, incredibly erudite.  In no way a reformer or a progressive, but a classic machine-type Dem. pol.  But he was, for instance, a huge classical music/Boston Symphony fan and even went with the orchestra on a couple of overseas tours.  I've always had a bit of a soft spot for him.  Fascinating character.

    Parent

    Billy it is. Thanks. (none / 0) (#98)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:54:49 PM EST
    Wasn't a college president at one time? UMass?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    he was college president at UMass Amherst, and was forced to resign under Romney when it came out that he communicated with his brother.  I am less... enamored with Billy than gryfalcon, maybe because I wasn't as aware of him during as much of his actual tenure, and know about him more through the aftermath.

    I see him as a very typical southie Democrat.  In other words, he was very progressive, except when it came to busing...

    I agree it is unlikely he knew his brother's whereabouts when he was on the run.  Then again, it is also hard completely trusting a person who clearly loves his brother the mass murderer.  And given that Whitey was well connected in the FBI, and his brother was president of the state senate, is just all a little too convenient.  I don't think they actively helped each other, but I certainly think that their presence inadvertantly helped each other consolidate power.

    Parent

    Unfair presentation (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by sj on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    it is also hard completely trusting a person who clearly loves his brother the mass murderer
    I would love my brother, too, were he shown to be a mass murderer.  My heart would be broken, but I would love my brother.  I wouldn't love the mass murderer.  Your conflation diminishes the love of one sibling for another, I think.  Just my opinion.

    Parent
    it's absolutely unfair (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    but it's also true that feel that way about it.  I have a hard time trusting him because he loves his brother the mass murderer.  And I wonder what he might do or have done for that love.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#104)
    by sj on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    I see your point.  I still think it's unnecessary to always append that "title" or descriptor to the words "his brother".  Not defending him.  I just don't like it.  It makes it sound like a Bad Thing that he loves his brother, when the bad thing is something else entirely.

    Parent
    progressive or not (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:23:17 AM EST
    he was "progressive" on economic issues.  Social issues not so much.  Maybe I'm using the term wrong.  Also pro-environment.  I really just can't get over the anti-busing southie bit.  It's just too familiar and fills too many negative stereotypes I have of southie.

    Parent