RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Goodwin reports: "Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: AP)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: AP)



Scalia Attacks Obama on Deportation

By Liz Goodwin, The Ticket/Y!News

26 June 12

 

n a stinging, 22-page dissent to Monday's decision striking down most of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized President Barack Obama's announcement earlier this month that he would stay the deportation of young illegal immigrants and suggested that the federal government does not want to enforce its immigration laws.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress's failure to pass the administra tion's proposed revision of the Immigration Act," Scalia, a Reagan appointee, wrote in his dissent. "Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Scalia went on to write:

Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona's estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants - including not just children but men and women under 30 - are now assured immunity from en forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari zona citizens for employment.

Scalia also repeatedly referenced Obama's policy of prosecutorial discretion, which directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to prioritize deporting the illegal immigrants who are frequent border crossers, have committed crimes, or recently entered the country illegally. The Obama administration has deported a record number of illegal immigrants, but its prosecutorial discretion policy still draws the ire of illegal immigration hawks.

Scalia directly referred to Obama's immigration enforcement policy as "lax" at one point.

"Must Arizona's ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement - or, even worse, to the executive's unwise targeting of that funding?" Scalia asked. Later, he added: "What I do fear - and what Arizona and the States that support it fear - is that 'federal policies' of nonen forcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration."

The federal government "does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States' borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude," Scalia alleged.

Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is "entitled" to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies.

The majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled that most of Arizona's law is unconstitutional, save for the provision that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+206 # Barbara K 2012-06-26 08:53
This guy has lost his marbles, and this rant proves it. He is supposed to be neutral, and he is not. He should be removed from the bench, he doesn't deserve the robes he wears or the position he holds on our once Supreme Court.
 
 
+148 # CAMUS1111 2012-06-26 09:01
He has his marbles--they are simply totally extreme fascist ones. One minimizes the danger posed to our country by (un-American)ex tremists like Scalia (and much of today's GOP) by calling them crazy.
 
 
+59 # doneasley 2012-06-26 12:25
Quoting CAMUS1111:
He has his marbles... One minimizes the danger posed to our country... by calling them crazy.


I agree, CAMUS, Scalia knows exactly what he's doing, knowing there will be no repercussions. He, Thomas, and Alito have openly attended and spoken at partisan GOP meetings. And we know that Thomas' wife has founded a Tea Party group, Liberty Central, that was really radical in it's opposition to President Obama's agenda, especially the Affordable Care Act.

I sure want to see these guys go too, but they have to go thru the same impeachment process that a president would go thru - charges brought by the House, and trial by the Senate. And guess who controls the House?

We CANNOT let Mitt win, or you'll get more of these guys on the Court replacing any liberal justices that may retire.
 
 
+52 # ABen 2012-06-26 13:45
Both of you are correct. Scalia makes a mockery of the notion of impartial judgement. I have watched him since his appointment, and I have come to the conclusion that he is at heart a Mussolini style fascist. Defenders of Scalia please take note that W. thought so little of Scalia as to appoint Roberts as Chief Justice even though Scalia was the senior member of the court.
 
 
+12 # Regina 2012-06-26 14:19
When the Chief's seat suddenly opened up on Rehnquist's death, W openly declared that he was appointing ultra-conservat ive Roberts because he was comparatively young, and would therefore be chief for a long time. Scalia by then was a tad over the hill to serve the extremists' agenda.
 
 
+19 # CL38 2012-06-26 17:17
Remember the SC nominee hearings when the right railed nonstop against activist judges? We knew that their nominees were activists, too, and here, finally is the proof: Scalia and other SC judges 'acting' on behalf of the extreme right to take over the country.
 
 
+95 # suzyskier 2012-06-26 09:16
Quoting Barbara K:
This guy has lost his marbles, and this rant proves it. He is supposed to be neutral, and he is not. He should be removed from the bench, he doesn't deserve the robes he wears or the position he holds on our once Supreme Court.


I think so too, he is acting very strangely and certainly not neutral though we knew that already, but now seems to have slipped completely off the edge. He needs to retire, now. This is not the behavior that someone of his standing should act. Seriously he needs tha attention of mental health specialists.
 
 
+40 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:26
Naw, he's not crazy. He just a right wing asshole who happens to partiallly hold the keys to the kingdom. He better damn well recuse himself on any more immigration cases.
 
 
+26 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:29
What marbles??? He is the one who wrote that "Innocence shall not be an impediment to incarceration." You mean these marbles???
 
 
+10 # Professorjane Gilgun 2012-06-26 19:38
Yes, impeach "Justice" Scalia. Even his title is a contradiction in terms. He does not stand for justice. He stands for the extreme right wing who say "Big me, little you" and act like bullies and battering rams. They do not understand the equality upon which this country is based. They will get their own way no matter who is hurt. The hope is in the rest of us to push back with our own values, programs, and policies.
 
 
+155 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 08:56
Is this guy Scalia a Supreme Court Justice or a pundit on Fox news? Is there a difference any more?
 
 
+47 # dfvboulder 2012-06-26 10:02
Apparently not much.
 
 
+116 # nealjking 2012-06-26 08:57
"Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is 'entitled' to make its own immigration policy. At one point, he cites the fact that before the Civil War, Southern states could exclude free blacks from their borders to support the idea that states should be able to set their own immigration policies."

What a winning precedent to quote! That'll win over a lot of fence-sitters, won't it?

Scalia is going off his rocker. We're talking brain tumor, or something like it.
 
 
+79 # DaveM 2012-06-26 09:13
From a (very) strict 10th Amendment perspective, Justice Scalia is in part correct. That said, the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a Federal agency and certainly not to be used by individual states as they see fit. Consequently, Arizona's law is indeed Unconstitutiona l to the extent that it demands participation by Federal authorities. Beyond that, Scalia's dissent is mere opinion, and belongs on a newspaper editorial page more than it does in a Supreme Court document.

So folks, everybody get out in November to vote for a President who with any luck will nominate Scalia's successor. And if you don't like the way Scalia thinks....I expect you know who to vote for.
 
 
+43 # LeeBlack 2012-06-26 09:37
It's time to have a term of service for Supreme Court judges - around 20 years. The lifetime term was meant to eliminate political obligation (the Justice to the President/Party that appointed him or her). Twenty year limits would keep that policy in place but would keep them from being that influential for such a long time.
 
 
+13 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:38
I agree. It is time for term limits. This would help eliminate the growing power of the Judiciary and their unlawful behavior.
 
 
+2 # historywriter 2012-06-27 08:42
Who would impose term limits? The House? Not right now, I think.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 17:36
No more than ten, then we vote. Tired of them being appointed because they kiss someone's special interest!
Time to remember that these are mere human beings nothing to be put on any pedestal. We have as many genius professors, doctors, scientists, hamburger flippers and even homeless. They have a criteria of what .... having law degree, sitting on benches, and having some ability to read or demand their personnel to read for them>
They are the same as you or me and those who wrote the Bible, mere flesh and bones.

Personally my pets have more intelligence, genius, but more impotaantly my animals listen and care.
 
 
+11 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:36
"...the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a Federal agency and certainly not to be used by individual states as they see fit."

Good point, Dave!
 
 
+3 # lexy677 2012-06-26 22:47
If you think is going to retire soon think again. Unless the devil takes him earlier, he will stay on the bench until he is 90 years old.
 
 
+67 # jimbo 2012-06-26 09:27
scalia: fascism at work against our democracy. One of the fascist four on our supreme court.
 
 
+83 # jhainaut 2012-06-26 09:27
This is such poor judgement on his part that it's hard to believe that he's really qualified to be a supreme court judge. I have a lot of years on me and I can never remember a SC judge criticizing the president or his policies. This is appalling.
 
 
+12 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:41
It's also justices being political from the bench; a role they were never to have in our system of government. Definitely time for term limits.
 
 
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 17:39
OB cannot ask him to resign over these matters but the American People should

Sure hope the Spanish Americans, Latin Americans are all switching Parties because for them to vote Republican is a Vote against them...same goes for all
 
 
+46 # tomtom 2012-06-26 09:38
Scalia, they aren't free if they aren't allowed the same rights as free whites. What an análogy. This man doesn't undérstand the rrelationship between racism and genocide. He perpetuates these crimes against humanity.
 
 
-171 # richard Glen 2012-06-26 09:38
Your liberals see it one way. Let all the illegals come into your state or city and cause all these problems. Better yet, why dont we just form one state for all of them and see what happens. America is without morals and now Un Godly,,,,what a shame
 
 
+60 # bbaldwin 2012-06-26 10:32
..and you my fellow writer are part of what is wrong with this country.
 
 
-94 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 11:11
Sorry but he's right and most Anericans, according to recent polls,
believe that the Federal Government (Democrats specifically) are not willing to enforce laws that are on the books because of the negative impact that would have at election time.
 
 
+29 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:31
What a joke. Same old worn out, tired right wing rant. I'm getting so sick of hearing the same old bullshit.
 
 
-24 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 16:28
Of course you are... You just don't get it... Join the 99% of us and I'll help you through this!
 
 
+6 # ruttaro 2012-06-27 09:40
"They just don't get it." That's the Limbaugh line used by both the big blowhard and his ditto-heads for decades now. Whenever someone challenges the big bloviater or his legions of loonies the response is always "They just don't get it." Maybe they don't get it because it is convoluted logic that proceeds from false premises. So....who is not getting it?
 
 
+7 # Professorjane Gilgun 2012-06-26 19:34
Yes, they do have a script. It's full of lies and distortions. It works. What are we saying back? Now that's the question.
 
 
+40 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 13:43
He' right? What part is right? Where is the evidence to support his generalizations ? And what country are you conservatives living in because as I recall the Republicans have been in charge for most of the decade. They didn't seem to have much of a problem with not enforcing the laws either. Maybe that is because agricultural businesses and companies tied to it (Tyson, Smithfield,etc) don't want the laws enforced. The problem or issue runs much deeper and is much more complex than the conservatives wish to acknowledge. Thus, broad generalizations based on fear. prejudice and ignorance are much more convenient.
 
 
+26 # Barbara K 2012-06-26 14:17
ruttaro: Bush did absolutely nothing to stop the influx from south of the border. He had 8 years to stop it. Obama has already returned more than anyone else in history, including Bush.
 
 
+17 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 13:45
And what polls are you referring to specifically? Which ones show that most Americans believe it is the Democrats who are not willing to enforce the laws? I haven't seen it so I'm curious. Please oblige.
 
 
+18 # Barbara K 2012-06-26 14:18
ruttaro: They are so bigoted that they don't even know that in 2010 Congress introduced the Dream Act, but the Republicans blocked it. So they can thank the Rs for all the illegals.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 17:52
Esp Trump
 
 
+7 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 19:04
Barbara K, thanks for that important piece of information. It's becoming more clear that people no longer care about facts or critical thought. They don't ask questions because frankly they don't want to know. Instead, they seek sources that comfort their prejudices assuring them that their misinformed and misguided ideas is therefore true. What hope do we have that the common good has any chance of ever being achieved? So much hate and vitriol has been increasing across the country aimed and directed towards the most defenseless and poorest people. Polls show that Americans are one of the most religious people in the post-industrial world yet that religious beliefs translates not into love and charity but hate and fear. Ultimately I place the responsibility at the feet of the powerful elites, interest groups and oligarchs who benefit wildly by keeping us at each others throats, conjuring up new "threats" creating a great distraction so they can pilfer everything that belongs to the people in a democratic society for themselves. Today it is illegal immigrants who are the great threat. No one asks why they come to the US nor care about the treacherous and dangerous journey they undertake. No one seems to wonder if maybe the reasons they are leaving Mexico might be because of policies we implemented through NAFTA. It's not normal to leave one's family to sneak into a country, possibly dying along the way. There is something in this and these conservatives don't want to know
 
 
-5 # JJS 2012-06-26 16:12
One law I think the Feds should enforce is the one against the hiring of illegal immigrants and not paying employment taxes.
We should document all immigrants and enforce fair and equal employment laws.
 
 
+56 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-06-26 10:43
As someone who lives in NY, I see "illegals" every day. Frankly, without them, the restaurant and hotel industries would collapse.
 
 
+48 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 10:49
"Better yet, why dont we just form one state for all of them and see what happens."

The English did that. It's turned out to be Australia.

BTW, I don't have any liberals, socialists have cats, not liberals, but I do have morals, and they don't have anything to do with the mythical god. My cats have more better morals than Scalia.

But you know what would happen if no undocumented aliens were here? You would not have anything to eat because there would be no one doing that work -- or you could not afford to eat at the prices they would be unless you ended up on SCOTUS, for which you are as qualified of several of them there since you have right wing opinions and nothing else.

You should understand: undocumented aliens are a major boon to the economy, doing labor dirt cheap, and paying more in taxes than they get back.

Fascists support the smear campaign against them because they keep that labor cheap, and because they comprise a scapegoat so people can blame their financial woes on immigrants instead of the capitalists/fas cists who are the actual cause, and it gives politicians a set of appealing lies to tell instead of solving any problems.

But you won't here about any of this on Fox news.
 
 
+26 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:33
Yes, and don't forget to mention that the right wing employers of illegals are afraid with citizenship, these folks might just join a union like the United Farm Workers.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 17:59
Many of them are going to Unions and becoming Citizens. Not stupid...just afraid. Many of them had to pay off people to get here, once paid, many have become citizens Why work for four and hour putting up walls when you can make twenty and benis
 
 
-94 # Robt Eagle 2012-06-26 10:53
richard, when something goes boom right next to the liberals writing on this site, then they will change their tunes. They didn't watch the illegals fly planes into the WTC on 9/11/2001. They didn't see the illegals destroy a city that fought back and rebuilt itself over a 10 year period. They haven't gone to 300 funerals for fire fighters and friends and watched their children grow up without their mom's and dads. When they get their backsides shaken from something like that, then they will cry about how they weren't protected. Not all illegals are migrant workers. Not all illegals are good people, in fact many are bad guys, joining gangs and doing harm to cities and communities large and small. Many illegals just suck off of the government breast causing more and more economic hardship for those that actually pay taxes for working real jobs and declaring their income. Illegal immigration should be upheld by the laws in force now, but Obama and his lacky Eric Holder of DoJ jsut change the rules at their whim. Why? More illegal votes for Obama that Holder refuses to prosecute? Read "Injustice" by J. Christian Adams.
 
 
+2 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 11:13
Yes we just added 1.4 million to the ranks of the unemployed.
 
 
+58 # BradFromSalem 2012-06-26 11:37
RobtEagle,

How evil minded can you be? A handful of illegal (they did get in legally) aliens committed a single atrocious act and now you broad brush everyone that is here illegally. By the way, President Obama and Eric Holder have arrested more illegal aliens than the previous President. FACT!
 
 
+8 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:03
WTC came down thanks to the Bush's Remember the Bush's had the family of the Terrorists ushered out of the USA
Then remember during the Japanese 'invasion' the American Authorities put Japanese Citizens in concentration camps so to speak....
Found the Bush way of letting their friends out the back door a bit against Homeland Security but then Ridge was in charge.
 
 
+59 # dkonstruction 2012-06-26 11:41
Mr. Eagle, please see Pat Garofalo's article in RSN entitled "JPMorgan Gets $14 Billion a Year From the US Government" and Matt Taibbi's recent piece "The Scam Wall Street Learned From The Mafia" on the organized crime dealings of the major financial institutions ...you complain about how "many illegals just suck off of the government breast"...what about those "legal persons" that have been and continue to suck us for billions year after year after year...so, if want to complain about "gangs and doing harm to our cities and communities" how 'bout you start going after the real culprits instead of the distractions.
 
 
+19 # Barbara K 2012-06-26 14:22
It's the top 1% Big Corps who bleed us more than anyone else.
 
 
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:04
Mr E and his followers are wanna be Monsanto's ....making money and killing people, animals and Earth
 
 
+2 # historywriter 2012-06-27 08:50
The facts are that without these undocumented "there are no such things as illegal humans or aliens either) workers our economy would go bust. Think these workers don't pay taxes?
They provide many benefits to our country. Better get used to it. You are about to be in a minorigty
 
 
+52 # engelbach 2012-06-26 11:47
It's quite a fantasy to equate the perpetrators of 9/11 with poor undocumented workers.

Your other fantasy is that imigration laws aren't being enforced.

Obama has deported more undocumented aliens in 3-1/2 years than Bush did in eight. Did you protest then that Bush was
"soft" on them? I doubt it.

Keep in mind that there are only so many agents to deal with undocumented workers. Obama is prioritizing enforcement in order to get rid of actual criminals.

Your post is pure partisanship, having no relation to actual facts.
 
 
+42 # question authority 2012-06-26 11:55
More violence is perpetrated on US citizens by US citizens than illegals are guilty of. This is not a liberal or conservative issue but a human rights issue pertaining to our constitution. Obama has deported more illegals than any prior president so your argument does not hold water. Those planes that hit the WTC were on the Bush/Cheney watch. They failed to heed the warnings from Richard Clarke then blamed others. Now that is responsible leadership!! or is it opprotunism to make billions? Your protestations about illegals sucking off the government fails to put it in perspective as the majority of legal superwealthy US citizens fail to pay taxes, using loopholes. Polarized opinions are guided by hate instead of facts and reason. You drink at the trough of ignorance, bigotry and narrowmindednes s. Hate is intoxicating isn't it?
 
 
+10 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:58
Hear, hear! Well said!!
 
 
+27 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 12:11
Robt, I don't see anything in what you say that is anywhere near the truth. Your generalizations are extraordinarily extreme and without any basis in fact. Just because 19 Saudi's hijacked and flew those planes on 9/11 may have been illegals, to scale that to incorporate almost all illegals, to quote Scalia "boggles the mind." You say not all illegals are migrant workers, are good people and many suck off the government breast defies facts. Research and you will find statistics that absolutely contradict everything you believe. 12 million undocumented in this country and only a few are involved in violent crime. Being illegal means they are seldom receiving even the minimal support or assistance from government programs. They pay sales taxes and FICA taxes but will not see one dime from it. In fact, if one thinks about it, it is kind of reverse welfare: by paying SS taxes the elderly SS recipients are sucking off their breast. The overwhelming majority of undocumented workers perform jobs that that Americans either can't do (transportation /traveling) or won't do and they want to work. You should further research reasons why we have such a flood of illegals from Latin America and Mexico. You might start by looking at the consequences of NAFTA on Mexican peasant farmers or the violence the Reagan funded Contras have committed and continue to associate with drug cartels. And a hard nosed conservative would be moved by the conditions most undocumented endure so we can eat.
 
 
+8 # CAMUS1111 2012-06-26 12:32
You mean the illegals W and company allowed/encoura ged to do commit those terrorist acts? Pathetic. Goose step's the new step today....
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:13
Those who are taking the fall never had the brains to do what happened. Their was other bombs already planted...we were lucky on that day...I believe NY was meant to go down. May the Bush's and Cheney;s be hung out for the Coyote's
 
 
+23 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:34
Oh, give us a break Eagle. Same old crap. Don't you ever give up?
 
 
+13 # hobbesian 2012-06-26 12:37
We invited them in to WORK for us because we would't do such hard work; we now want them gone because what? they aren't useful any more? they suddenly had children who are now legally Americans, being born on US soil, or dirt whatever you want to call it.? We cannot have it both ways; kids born in the US unexpectedly to foreigners who then went straight back to their own countries - Scandinavia for example - their kids are considered by the IRS to be delinquent in their US tax payments, and are currently being chased overseas for unpaid taxes going back to the year they were born, even though they never entered the US for 25 years..... Back off buddy-boys, and make up your minds.
 
 
+13 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-06-26 13:44
And in WTC7, maybe?
Google up "Youtube WTC7 Silverstein" and borrow a brain that works for a time.
 
 
+15 # ericlipps 2012-06-26 14:45
Quoting Robt Eagle:
richard, when something goes boom right next to the liberals writing on this site, then they will change their tunes. They didn't watch the illegals fly planes into the WTC on 9/11/2001.


Robert old bird, I live in New York City. I did watch the Twin Towers go down, on your hero Dubya's watch. And friend, you're full of it.

The men who flew those planes into the towers got into the U.S. legally, though at least some of them overstayed their visas.

For that matter, the nuts who took down the Federal Building in Oklahoma City back in 1995 were home-grown Christian fanatics. And at least one Republican in Congress--Helen Chenoweth of Idaho--had the gall to stand up and defend terrorist "militias" of the right after that atrocity.

And, oh yes--a lot of illegals have jobs, Bob. They have to; they can't qualify for welfare without proof of legal residence. You just don't see them, because they're doing the scutwork Americans won't do, for wages Americans wouldn't take.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:20
Disagree on some of the work. Many Rep Slumlords are very good wanting couple of dollar an hour people to paint, do construction. In fact if you remember Unions showed them on Media getting picked up at every street corner in major Cities.

Trump brought in ten thousand for work in his holdings and Casinos...only have to look up the Hotels fifteen years ago or so. He got kickbacks on top of it.

I do not buy the bs that we did not want to do the work, but no I didnot want to live in filth and pick cotton or apples for couple dollars a day. I thought America was against Slavery but obviously I am still wrong
 
 
+9 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:55
Evidently you have never been on Social Services and know very little about that process. I worked for their legal department and I can tell you, it is not as easy to get welfare as you on the Right like to make everyone think. Not only are the claimants thoroughly scrutinized and put through a long and tedious process, the money a recipient gets in the end is barely livable. How would you like to have sixty-six dollars to live on for a whole month to cover all your expenses after rent is covered? Try it. You might learn something.
 
 
+6 # charsjcca 2012-06-26 15:18
Just how did some illegals fly planes. I asked the Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta to release the video evidence of those boarding the planes and match them against the 19 faces widely published in
American newspapers and it never happened. It seemed like a simple task, just show the video. The whole thing is a fraud, in my humble opinion, just like the Gulf of Tomkin incident of yesteryear-Amer ica is fraught with fraud.
 
 
+36 # BradFromSalem 2012-06-26 11:33
Please be specific as to what problems the illegals are causing? You sound like the early Nazi's blaming unnamed problems on the Jews and the Roma. Is that what you aspire to, to emulate Nazi Germany?
We liberals see history, and we know history to be one of the best tools available to examine mankind's yin and yang.
 
 
+17 # engelbach 2012-06-26 11:49
Brush up on the current enforcement of anti-immigratio n laws.

You are hopelessly ill-informed.
 
 
+17 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:36
Hey, everybody, why don't we just stop responding to old Eagle. he's obviously totally, dead wrong in everything he writes. He has an agenda and refuses to listen to fact.
 
 
+7 # Regina 2012-06-26 14:34
We need to remind Eagle that unless he is a member of a Native American tribe, his American family tree begins with an immigrant (or 2). For a couple of centuries, 17th-18th, before Ellis Island, immigration was not "regulated." (And our reaction to various ethnic groups then took a turn for the nasty.) But the longevity of his tree line doesn't make him any "superior" as a human being than those who came here later.
 
 
+6 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:03
I think a lot of these paid hacks are here to provoke us to discussion so they can see what our arguments are and then they give it over to the likes of Limbnaugh who then comes up with the latest nonsense-du-jou r to try and neutralize it and give his followers another brain hosing.
 
 
-7 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 16:31
Yah I get $10.00 per session to share your deep thoughts with someone who cares .... Join the 99% and get out of whatever ditch you currently occupy. You'll find it to be a refreshing change.
 
 
+6 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 18:01
Only $10? It figures, with the quality of the stuff you post. But I write for the poor socialists, who don't have much money at all, and I get $175. I guess you are being ripped off by the right wing, like everyone else is?

Or maybe you do this as a hobby, for free? Or someone has something juicy on you?
Heeeeeyyy! I know! You're an illegal immiogrant and you're afraid of being turned in, and that's why you work so cheap.

Mystery solved...
 
 
+2 # BradFromSalem 2012-06-27 05:24
bluepilgrim,

Sarcasm is my middle name. Give it back!
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:21
You are a one per center yu are not one of us. Never could be unless you are the one mugging and breaking the glass.
 
 
+8 # bmiluski 2012-06-26 12:12
How is deporting people moral?
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:03
Especially after Monsanto has sacked their country and there is nothing to eat there.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:30
You're a genius writer. Man, have you got all the facts. Maybe you should get a job on Fox Noise.
 
 
+6 # Barbara K 2012-06-26 14:14
Problem is that the American Indians and Mexicans occupied your state first. That makes you and your ancestors the immigrants.
 
 
+10 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 14:45
The reason illegal come to America is because America sacked Mexico's economy with Monsanto Genetically Engineered one-growing-sea son-only corn, which drove Mexican farmers into the waiting arms of American corporate business owners (I used to work for one of these unAmericans who used slave Mexican labor for poor pay). Stop the business community from being able to hire illegals and the illegals will have no reasons for coming here. But Rush Limbnaugh would never tell you this.
 
 
+4 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 18:07
Not just that -- also NAFTA, and US subsidized corn which makes it untenable for Mexican farmers to sell their crop -- and a few other things as part of the general campaign to exploit other countries.

The rate of undocumented workers is falling though as it's getting harder to make enough money to be worth coming: now it's the American workers who are being exploited with unemployment and falling wages, as the US itself is becoming an underdeveloped colony of the fascists who want to exploit the entire world in a return to feudalism and virtual slavery.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:25
American Corporations, farms went and paid them to come or picked them up in forties...so please do not use Monsanto for crop picking during a War. Monsanto is a problem but Farms needed workers during war...Mexico was close. Texas stated it that way. As did California.
Many Black Families came North to Orchards as was Prisoners used. But we brought in third world countries at first to help, then to make themselves rich. The bias towards them certainly didnot hurt either, gotta love those down home Christians.
 
 
+7 # JJS 2012-06-26 16:10
TQuoting richard Glen:
Your liberals see it one way. Let all the illegals come into your state or city and cause all these problems. Better yet, why dont we just form one state for all of them and see what happens. America is without morals and now Un Godly,,,,what a shame


How about looking at it THIS way?
The reason "illegals" are in AZ is because SOMEBODY is hiring undocumented immigrants. Now who could that be?????Shouldn' t we consider the businesses who hire undocumented immigrants the "illegals"?

If we document all immigrants and permit them to work and pay taxes, without granting automatic citizenship, wouldn't that be a win-win situation?

Keeping people hidden and off the books is about the worst situation I can see.
 
 
+4 # Wailuku1 2012-06-26 16:27
This makes absolutely no sense. Just throw together as many incendiary talking points as you can in one paragraph and you're sure to get someone riled.

It's not just liberals who believe the United States should have a fair and just immigration system.

And I have seen nothing on this page that advocates "all the illegals" should be allowed in.

However, I do have to agree with your last line...but probably not the way you meant it. America is without morals and now un-Godly when it comes to our immigration policy. Separating families, spouses, children...is all immoral and very un-Jesus-like.

The United States is a nation of immigrants. Justice Scalia, the first Supreme Court justice of Italian ancestry and whose father immigrated to the U.S. from Italy, seems to be ignoring his roots. One wonders how his father reacted to the "America Must Be Kept American" moves of the 1920s.

Unfortunately, "I got mine, so to Hell with the rest of you" seems to be the immigration policy Justice Scalia wants us to follow.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 18:28
too bad Ob just said we should allow kids..boy I was hoping we could use that against Scalia.
I believe in spaying and neutering not just because of mentality on sites but...lots of 1% might actual still be a thought and should be
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 17:45
According to part of my ancestry You are all illegals, Murderers/Rapis ts. So how is that for a thought

By the way maybe you should read some History, we like many Nations have been keeping them in their nations.islands , exploiting their natural resources, stealing their money and dumping our chemicals...thi s includes Hawaii and Alaska which were given Statehood. However our other holdings are not given their rights of Statehood.
Without Morals you betcha...every white trash Church that pays itself and gives itself big time salaries are whores, they promote large corporate whores misusing their employees and taking jobs out of the USA. Morals...Church es talk money not morals Grow Up
 
 
+2 # phrixus 2012-06-27 03:50
America (American government specifically) is SUPPOSED to be "Ungodly" i.e. secular. And what problems are you referring to? Based on what empirical evidence?
Additionally, your statement recommending forming "one state for them" is reminiscent of WWII Japanese internment camps and various other nasty places where human beings were deprived of life and liberty.
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2012-06-27 05:51
The United States almost doubled the deportation rate of foreign nationals over a 10-year span, according to the Department of Homeland Security’s statistics. In 1999 there were approximately 185,000 deportations and in 2008 there were approximately 359,000 deportations. In 2009, Obama's first year in office the number of deportations jumped to 395,000 (a 10% increase over Bush's highest number) and in 2010, the number was 387,000 (an 8% increase over Bush's highest number) 2011 was 397,000. Now I am not putting a value on whether the deportations are 'good' or 'bad'. What I am trying to show you is that if you think deportations are 'good', Obama has done more of that than any other president in recent history, yet still a rabid Republican ideologue (Scalia) claims that the problems are "Obama's lax deportation policies". The government numbers don't lie. No one on the court was complaining about Bush's "lax deportation policies" when in his first year in office there were roughly 190,000 deportations which went down to about 155,000, his second year in office. (from there it steadily increased by about 8% to 10% per year, statistically indistinguishab le from Obama's increases) My point is that this is a non-issue. If you weren't fired up about Bush's INS, there is no marked distinction between his numbers and Obama's. (Other than the fact that Obama is a black Democrat) Okay, NOW I see your problem.
 
 
+46 # bingers 2012-06-26 09:43
When you're attacked by the worst justice and most corrupt justice in history, it's a badge of honor.
 
 
+76 # deejaycee 2012-06-26 09:48
This is the most blatant example of judicial activism in the history of the court. I think Scalia should be impeached. He is directly responsible for the court's interference in the Florida vote resulting in the election of George Bush. He should have been removed then. He has repeatedly refused to recuse himself when he had a vested interest in the case being heard.

From his hunting trips with Dick Cheney to his attendance at the Koch Brothers bash he has shown his bias. His rulings are right out of the Republican playbook.
 
 
+37 # twin2jerry 2012-06-26 10:25
Thank you deejaycee, I could not agree more. thanks to Supreme court judges like him, our president was appointed instead of being elected in 2000. As a result, our country was destroyed with billions, maybe even trillions of tax payer dollars given to fat cat CEOs. Judges are suposed to be unbiased! It is time to impeach him.
 
 
-33 # forparity 2012-06-26 11:19
No. Al Gore is responsible for the court's interference - and the Florida Supremes, who refused to heed David Boies' council.
 
 
+14 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:09
Gore is responsible??? Was he responsible for Jeb Bush telling his cousin John Ellis to call the election in favor of his brother when the voting wasn't even finished being counted? Was Gore responsible when Katheryn Harris, the then Secretary of State hid all those votes for Gore in a locked closet for two years after the election? Was it Gore's responsibility when Rehnquist overstepped his authority and was an activist from the bench when he ordered that the vote counting be stopped??? And you claim to have a clue as to what's going on in this country? I think not. Go back to your angels on a pin head, a place where you belong.
 
 
-14 # forparity 2012-06-26 16:15
What? What have you been reading.

Gore is the one that sent all the attorneys into Florida the night before. He is the one that started suing Democrat run polls, because they didn't want to do recounts.

Fox did call the election for Fla - a bit too early - then retracted - but that cost Bush votes, not Gore. Fl panhandle is heavily Republican - and in a different time zone.

Harris what ever - the Democrat State Attorney in Oregon - the Gore state chair - went live on TV telling the country that he was hard at work that night trying to run up the votes for Gore.

The national media - which supported Gore - conducted the recount right away - they were not locked up. Bush won again - in case you forgot - using the rules the Florida Supreme Court laid out.

Gore's attorney, David Boies, told the Florida Supreme Court that they had no authority to order a state wide recount - that Gore didn't want a state wide recount - and that the US would throw it out. Boies was correct.

Still in the end - the statewide recount gave the win to Bush - even without all the votes that the Democrats disenfranchised .
 
 
+1 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 18:10
Gore won:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
 
 
-9 # forparity 2012-06-26 19:00
No - he did not. - not under the conditions that existed at the time - and/or the guidelines that the Florida Supreme court laid out.

In other words, had the recount preceded as ordered by the Florida SC, Bush would have one.

That is not in dispute.

The scenarios that paint a different picture did not exist at the time.
 
 
+1 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 19:45
The problem was the butterfly balloots that by virtual of the design confused elderly voters and threw the count way out of balance in south Florida. "Intended" could not even be computed.
 
 
+1 # forparity 2012-06-27 11:18
There are "problems" in every election. On both sides of the aisle. The butterfly ballot's used in W. Palm Beach were a problem -- but of course, it's rather important to note that they were designed and approved by a Democratic board.
In Chicago, they had a much more complicated - difficult to follow/figure out butterfly ballot - but Gore won there - so, it's not an issue.

And actually the elderly were not so confused. What happened is that the Gore campaign rushed to hire a tele firm out of Texas (imagine that) - which robo-called voters in W. Palm Beach all day long - scaring them into believing that they may have been confused.

Politics - is a big game. There is no holy ground.

I know plenty of liberal folks around here - who were actively involved in illegal voting practices in the 2000 election - including busing elderly disabled voters to the polls and illegally marking the ballots for them.

That was fine with them - but they were all upset about butterfly ballots.

Politics - bias - it's everywhere.
 
 
+2 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 19:47
The conditions of a rigged vote...

How about 'the one the most voters wanted wins'? It's called democracy.
 
 
+2 # BradFromSalem 2012-06-27 05:27
Not true in the US Senate.
 
 
+45 # dstroh 2012-06-26 09:48
Total and complete lack of judicial temperament.
 
 
+50 # bingers 2012-06-26 09:49
richard Glen, He only exempted people who were brought here as kids and know no other home. Many of them only speak English and know no other culture. Put yourself in their place and think about how it would affect you in that spot.

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with common decency and I choose to believe that many conservatives are decent (if deluded) people.
 
 
+3 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:10
Good one, Binger.
 
 
+38 # angelfish 2012-06-26 09:50
Scalia is a senile old Fart who should be IMPEACHED along with his other Hard Right-Wing Ideologue Justices for their Legislating from the Bench in favor of their Mega-Wealthy Masters! What ever happened to Democracy? They are turning this Country into a "Fourth Reich" and MUST be brought to heel before we DO wind up having to show "papers" without cause and become "disappeared" as in other Dictator-States . NEVER, EVER Vote ReTHUGlican! The People, UNITED will NEVER be defeated!
 
 
-19 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 11:14
Sorry but the 99% will speak in November and you're probably not going to like it judging by your hate mongering.
 
 
+8 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:13
This is rich: a RepubliCON calling a tree-hugging, animal and Earth protecting, people loving liberal a hate monger...ROFL!
 
 
+3 # ruttaro 2012-06-27 09:53
What hate mongering? If Limbaugh said the same things of say Ginsberg or Bryer the Cons and Tea Party would dress up like Washington, try to make their three cornered hats fit onto a square and then run around claiming it is free speech and if liberals don't like it, tough. And what 99% are you talking about? 99% of the 20% of radical frothing Tea Party reactionaries? Or is this just another attempt at theft? You know, the 1% stole most of the little wealth the middle and working class had, then went after the crumbs the poor had and now, what? want to steal the slogan of the OWS?
 
 
+71 # grrrr 2012-06-26 09:56
"Arizona's entire immigration law should be upheld, Scalia wrote, because it is 'entitled' to make its own immigration policy."
Why is it OK for Arizona to make its own immigration policy, but not OK for Montana to make it's own policy against "robber barons" buying elections?
 
 
+7 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:14
Rigged elections come from rigged minds.
 
 
-46 # Montague 2012-06-26 09:56
As an outsider in the UK, I'm surprised at the vitriol poured on Scalia. Dissenting opinions are part of court practice, so just because he's right-wing and disagrees with the progressive view doesn't make him mentally ill! Also, I can't see why as one poster says, it's "appalling" to criticise a President or his policies from the bench. Surely folks on this site will all be cheering if a Justice denounces a Presidential policy you DON'T like? In the UK governments were so keen to be seen as politically correct that they assumed anyone who complained about mass immigration causing strain on schools (often with a majority of non-English speakers), medical and housing was an ignorant Nazi, with the result that people found the only ones willing to listen were opportunist extremist parties. Sad.
 
 
+29 # twin2jerry 2012-06-26 10:42
In America our Supreme court judges are suposed to be neutral. Our President was elected by the people for the people. Because of judges like Scalia, our President was appointed in 2000 by the Republican party and that ruined our democrocy. We do not have a king or queen running our country like you do.
 
 
+5 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:40
Now to be fair, the Royals do not run England, the Parliment does that. But I do get a kick out of listening to all those people in the House of Commons yelling at each other during speaches. That just cracks me up!
 
 
-19 # forparity 2012-06-26 13:41
Nope - Obama was elected (chosen) by the national media. Many of them have admitted it now.
 
 
-2 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:34
Unless you want to arguably include King George I (W) of America. A direct line descendant of King George III (who was slightly off the beam) of England.
 
 
0 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 19:50
I have never seen the heridary connection in my reading of Washington. Where have you dug this up?
 
 
+30 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 10:54
These are not legal opinions, and are, as dstroh points out, lacking judicial temperament. A justice should be non-partisan and non-political.
 
 
+8 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:29
It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion, it's another to be so prejudiced and bias that everything that comes out of you is the same old party line; that's a politician and Scalia is wrongly placed in the SCOTUS. He should have become a T-bagger. At least then he'd have been well placed and fairly honest about what he does. I've also watched him in Moot Court twisting and bending the minds of young lawyers instead of teaching them to be unbiased and seek the truth. And you are wrong about cheering for any Supreme Court Justice that does not appropriately carry out his office. Scalia is in the judiciary and needs to stay within the boundaries of the judiciary and keep his mouth shut instead of overriding the process with his flaming arrogance. (That's a looser shooting off his mouth.)

As for your UK government, you obviously don't understand that your country underwent a Tory coup d'etat with your ballot boxes and vote counting was perverted so that Margaret Thatcher would be installed. And look at the changes that England underwent after that: It's why your people are out in the streets Occupying.

You must be a Tory yourself to think that anyone who embraces human rights and civil liberties is an "extremist". You should see what us tree-huggers see from our side of the table.
 
 
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 19:48
Dissenting Opinion YES...but he went after the President's position of priotizing, well within the the POTUS's authority. That had no place in the opinion about the case at hand.
Scalia's job is to rule on th eissues in front of him.
 
 
+36 # dfvboulder 2012-06-26 10:01
Just incredible. Scalia has lost all sense of his limits.

His statement went way beyond his role as a Supreme. He sounded more like a Republican goof pouring out of his clown car for one of their presidential debates.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:34
That should change...I hope those in Montana who wanted their rights held accountable see what must be done. Corporations are not People, I wonder if any of the Boards or Owners are either
 
 
+65 # Brucedog 2012-06-26 10:02
Let me get this straight...Ariz ona enjoys State's rights, but Montana doesn't.
 
 
-27 # linkedout 2012-06-26 10:07
#richard Glen: Read Leviticus 19:33-34, and pray about what The Lord would really want you to do.
 
 
+5 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 12:24
Linked out, I don't know why you are getting the negatives unless it is the conservatives religious fanatics who also don't want to know what God desires when that desire conflicts with their prejudices and hatred. Here is what Leviticus 19:33-34 says:

“‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.:

So why the negatives everyone? Not that it matters but I'm not a believer. But I can only assume that one of two types are hitting the thumbs down; a) people like myself who don't believe but also have a negative feeling about those who do; or b) those right wing Bible fanatics who only select the passages that support their views and call it God's word thus will but ignore anything from the Bible that confronts their prejudices telling God to put a sock in it. These are the same who might heartily quote Leviticus when they need to denounce homosexuality - that abomination to the Lord - and gleefully smirk that they know God's will but then ignore other parts of Leviticus such as this. Which is pretty much why Jesus in turn denounced the hypocrites for what they were and paid the price.

So who is hitting the thumbs down?
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:38
a)
 
 
0 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 19:56
The right doesn't hear GOD...they are strictly New Testament, and pick and choose from that.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:36
Levitcous was evil, one only has to read a few sentences to see they type L represents. Evil
 
 
0 # SpyderJan 2012-06-27 05:39
As far as I know, the Lord doesn't have a vote.
 
 
+66 # Legal maven 2012-06-26 10:11
I graduated Harvard law in 1965 and have followed the Supreme Court and some of the justices for over 45 years. I always thought Scalia's opinion about original intent were strange - an excuse to reconstruct the Constitution in his own ideological and religious image! Criticizing a president in an opinion is shocking. He has crossed over from judicial officer to political hack. He is truly an embarrassment , a disgrace to the judicial system, and hopefully his views will be ridiculed in every constitutional law class in the country. He and Thomas have done more to undermine the public's confidence in the law than any justices in history. I am almost ashamed to be part of the legal system. And we will have to live with these two outliers for many years to come. That is why who we elect as president makes all the difference in the world. Romney will surely appoint more justices just like Scalia and that will turnover our legal system to the 1%, along with every branch of government, both on the federal level and state. This election will be a watershed moment for our country. Can we put on the brakes to the moneyed interest juggernaut that is being unleashed in this election? I am beginning to lose faith. It is tragic what havoc unlimited wealth will wreak on our society.
 
 
+25 # twin2jerry 2012-06-26 10:47
Quoting Legal maven:
I graduated Harvard law in 1965 and have followed the Supreme Court and some of the justices for over 45 years. I always thought Scalia's opinion about original intent were strange - an excuse to reconstruct the Constitution in his own ideological and religious image! Criticizing a president in an opinion is shocking. He has crossed over from judicial officer to political hack. He is truly an embarrassment , a disgrace to the judicial system, and hopefully his views will be ridiculed in every constitutional law class in the country. He and Thomas have done more to undermine the public's confidence in the law than any justices in history. I am almost ashamed to be part of the legal system. And we will have to live with these two outliers for many years to come. That is why who we elect as president makes all the difference in the world. Romney will surely appoint more justices just like Scalia and that will turnover our legal system to the 1%, along with every branch of government, both on the federal level and state. This election will be a watershed moment for our country. Can we put on the brakes to the moneyed interest juggernaut that is being unleashed in this election? I am beginning to lose faith. It is tragic what havoc unlimited wealth will wreak on our society.


Very well said, worth repeating
 
 
+3 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:42
We are lucky to have any good lawyers left.
They are being supplanted by Liberty Univ., Patrick Henry and Regents Univ., and the graduates of Jay Sekulow's Center for Law and Justice (sic).
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:38
I believe too many egoes get the better if those given such a infinity job.

I do not think Scalia gives a , one way or the other.
 
 
-49 # Above God 2012-06-26 10:14
Illegal immigration is just that, illegal. Should the federal government pick and choose what laws to enforce and not enforce, why can't I do the same? Ranchers have been murdered by drug and human smugglers on their own land. Shouldn't the Talaban have the right to be illegal aliens also?
 
 
+17 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-06-26 10:44
Who do you think makes the laws? Do you know why Congress is called the "legislative branch"?
 
 
+22 # engelbach 2012-06-26 11:50
The laws are being enforced. The government is prioritizing the deportation of those who have been convicted of crimes.

Bush didn't enforce the law. Did you protest then? Obama has deported more people in 3-1/2 years than Bush did in eight.
 
 
+6 # Todd Williams 2012-06-26 12:42
You think the Taliban really want to come and live in America? Ha. That's a joke.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:50
They have been here for decades. One doesnot have Islam in a Country and not know who the players are. That is all cults, fanatic isms.
 
 
+9 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:45
A lot of people come to America trying to find a better life. All of my grandparents came from foreign countries. Three of them running from the Irish Holocaust and the famines. We need to extend compassion not arrogance. I'm not saying don't regulate their entrance, but if they want to be good citizens of this country, why should others object?
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:49
do you have concept of what you even wrote...
Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. duh.
YUP The Government basically has chose laws, used wheeling/dealin g, persuasion, probably even blakmail, yes we watched for decades if not century.

Lot of Ranchers made wheelin and dealin with the 'trade' quite a comfortable living. So yes many got killed. Kids have been dying in the streets for decades for drugs...most brought in by very rich people, many with diplomatic immunity. Did any of you care or did you say some words about their color?

Taliban, Communists, Nazis, MuMus are citizens of the USA. Once you are thru citizenship, I am sure many Taliban are also illegal aliens, as are Russians, Asians, Indians,.... I remember when the Bush Family and Cheney gave them an escort out of the USA. Right after WTC, imagine that...Bush and Cheney involved with Taliban. Papa B was CIA, CIA use and pay illegals to do things for them.
 
 
+38 # teineitalia 2012-06-26 10:18
A disturbing trend here. Sad to say this man is a fellow Italian American. What a fascist he has shown himself to be. I'm embarrassed by him, and everyone like him. Italians were once immigrants,too. How conveniently he forgets that.
 
 
+12 # ruttaro 2012-06-26 12:31
Yes, but he forgot the struggles of his grandparents like many 3rd and 4th generation Italian Americans. My father told me stories when he was growing up during the depression. He said you could always tell when the Republicans were in charge of the city. When Democrats were in charge, the coal that welfare allocated to the poor would be delivered to the houses and sent down the chutes to the bins in the basements. When the Republicans were in charge the coal was delivered at the end of the street and everyone had to go out in the cold, the rain and snow and carry it back to their homes. It seems little has changed in the opinions Republicans have towards the poor.
 
 
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 19:58
They were also fascists...

Scalia has gotten to pork rolled into his seat....time we refurbish it with VOTED in Justices. No more than Ten years, no affiliations, cannot vote during term, no promote No Private Seminars, Meetings on matters with any group or person No intemingling. They must use the Law, Facts, evaluate decisions and outcomes. Then use their head. Even sequester. no media....they must use the fact, Points, Cases in front,Let them have to use the Library we bought for them and pay to keep up...then perhaps some thought would come, Sense made. work actually get done
 
 
+34 # Legal maven 2012-06-26 10:26
On another topic that we can expect Scalia and his henchman to opine on, the Affordable Care Act, I would like to remind our deeply committed conservatives, that someone as esteemed and respected conservative constitutional law scholar at Harvard Law School, Charles Fried, former solicitor general under Republican icon, Ronald Reagan, testified as follows before Congress on the ACA:
In his testimony before the committee, Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and a former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, said that he “is quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional.”
“To my mind, that is the end of the story,” Fried added. “The mandate is a rule. More accurately, it is part of the system of rules by which commerce is to be governed.” Fried cited precedent in a Supreme Court decision from 1905, Jacobsen v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in which the Court accepted the constitutionali ty of mandatory vaccination laws to protect the welfare of all residents.
I understand that every citizen can have an opinion about what they think the constitution allows, but laymen are no more qualified to give a correct opinion than a layman has the ability to give an opinion about the diagnosis and treatment of brain cancer. Laymen can give opinions but they would be wrong. Brain surgeons are educated and trained just as constitutional law experts to give opinions. That is the truth.
 
 
+37 # LegendBert 2012-06-26 10:26
Justice Scalia, the question you are supposed to answer is whether the Arizona law is constitutional, not whether you like President Obama's actions. Maybe you should read the Constitution?
 
 
+30 # carolsj 2012-06-26 10:35
Obama's statement was not all or nothing. It specified undocumented under 30s who had no criminal record, are getting an American education and basically being good residents. These people are Americans culturally and deporting them to a strange country and culture would be cruel and unusual punishment.
 
 
+28 # jamal49 2012-06-26 10:37
Maybe Scalia is doing an audition to be a FOXNews "talking head". Because, otherwise, there is absolutely NO justification for that man to make any type of comment like what he wrote in his opinion. The guy has exposed himself to be a biased, non-neutral, right-wing, partisan HACK and completely--and I mean utterly and completely--unq ualified to sit on the nation's highest court! The guy needs to be impeached before he brings all of American jurisprudence crashing down around him.
 
 
-14 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 11:25
Actually it would be interesting to listen to what Liberal Bob Beckel on Fox would say even though I almost always disagree with him. The Liberal talking heads in Fox are far more entertaining than watching MSNBC.
 
 
+19 # bmiluski 2012-06-26 12:19
I believe a liberal on FOX is an oximoronic term.
 
 
-10 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 16:17
Give it a try. They ard pretty smart... Something that seems to be lacking on MSNBC.
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:56
Correction: "our" nation, and "our" highest court.

These things do not belong to the likes of Antonin Scalia or any other hack in robes. Scalia may not realize it but he is a temporary visitor to the SCOTUS and nothing more.

The SCOTUS belongs to We the People, and the proof is that it is funded by "our" tax dollars.

Let us not forget: He who pays the piper calls the tune.
 
 
0 # KittatinyHawk 2012-06-26 20:09
Time we makeit tike to meet, get it together to start a motion on rewriting Supreme Court Justice, who what when where...term limit....this could be a good movement Referendum for Fall
Label GMO
No Pipeline, no fracking,
Jobs in america, amreica products there is lots more Anyone ready to start
 
 
+24 # DikBala 2012-06-26 10:37
With a strong Democrat majority in both houses (or at least in the Senate), it would be possible to impeach one or more justices. This is legitimate on several counts, not least of which is their activist subservience of genuine constitutional law to personal politics. I would go for removal of Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.
 
 
+4 # Regina 2012-06-26 14:41
And Alito.
 
 
+4 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:57
I would go for all of the above plus Alito for Congressional perjury re stare decisis and Citizens United.
 
 
+17 # ansleypk@aol.com 2012-06-26 10:39
Well, well, well, Scalia attacks Obama! This is the man who likened making everyone pay for health insurance (might we call this personal responsibility- -the term right-wingers are always throwing out) like forcing everyone to EAT broccoli?
A more apropos (intelligent!) comparison would be asking everyone who shows up at the grocery store to have to PAY for their broccoli. Here is a man who is considered highly intelligent who inexplicably shows how stupid brainiacs can be. Pathetic.
 
 
+3 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 15:59
Scalia was not put into the SCOTUS because he was a "brainiac". He was put in there to restore chaos (according to dubya) as part of the Contract on America.
 
 
+32 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-06-26 10:42
Scalia's father was an immigrant, as were both his maternal grandparents. He really is beyond disgusting.
 
 
-19 # forparity 2012-06-26 11:25
"Disgusting?"

Such language - such hate.

One wonders why he and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are such close friends, pals and so much respect each other.
 
 
-2 # hobbesian 2012-06-26 14:38
Yes totally not understandable. ..
 
 
+14 # dick 2012-06-26 11:01
SCOTUS is NOT supposed to neutral. It is supposed to be a Decider, take one side or the other. The wealthy right imports cheap & exploitable labor & then complains when the left "interferes." Obama permits will make people ALREADY HERE, FOR A LONG TIME, harder to exploit, sexually & otherwise. That pisses off the 0.01%. Obama FINALLY stood up to them, & quite cleverly tied his Action to GOP inaction, not to mention picked up some votes. Scalia ignores his record deportations; the guy sucks.
 
 
+11 # BradFromSalem 2012-06-26 11:03
Scalia's accusation that the President is endangering the country by not defending our borders against the onslaught of marauding illegal aliens who steal our jobs, trespass on our private property, commit uncountable acts of violent crimes, and infect us all with horrible diseases should be addressed in Articles of Impeachment not in a legal argument.

Justice Scalia is without a doubt demonstrating that he is incapable of serving any longer. I suggest that we request our Congresspersons to do so immediately. I tremble at the thought of what he will proclaim in the Health care decision.
 
 
+13 # Old Uncle Dave 2012-06-26 11:17
Of all the justices of SCOTUS, Scalia is the one I most want to go hunting with Dick Cheney when he's been drinking.
 
 
+7 # charsjcca 2012-06-26 11:19
If any of you know Justice Scalia would you please ask him if he has heard of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo of 1848. If so, does he think that it is legitimate to take land from occupants because they do not have guns?
 
 
+7 # hobbesian 2012-06-26 12:41
And another thing; how dare he "judge" against health care for us all while enjoying to the nth degree the most abundant health care PAID FOR BY US ALL whether we can afford it or not. I think he should recuse himself - on EVERYTHING. What a loathsome and selfish individual. Sounds as if he HAS scales, not holding the scales of justice.
 
 
+13 # ekogaia 2012-06-26 12:15
Not being a US citizen I am unsure of your laws but I know that if any judge in my nation went on a rant about a leadership decision like this one then he would be open to impeachment. Surely the separation of powers between the executive and judiciary forbid this sort of nonsense from a sitting judge?
It would be fine if he commented on what was before him but he has clearly strayed way beyond this to issues of executive policy, way outside his balliwick.
Impeach this man, he is clearly unfit for office, particularly such office as he now occupies.
 
 
+11 # bmiluski 2012-06-26 12:30
Let's not forget that it was Scalia and his right wing buddies that "selected" GWBush as our president and who them drove our country into a deep recession. It was also Scalia and his right wing buddies who sold our country to the highest bidder by deciding that corporations were individuals.
 
 
+11 # Nell H 2012-06-26 13:23
Either the government attempts to deport everyone who is here illegally, or it makes sensible decisions about deportation.

In 1954 the US tried to deport all people who were here illegally. It was called Operation Wetback and it was an overwhelming failure. The cruelty changed popular opinion and the deportation was abandoned.

President Obama seems to have read history and chooses not to repeat it.
 
 
+9 # sapereaudeprime 2012-06-26 13:57
I am so glad that an Ellis Island cowbird like Scalia has an opinion on immigration. Tell me again, how many generations of Scalia's forebears helped with the heavy lifting that built this country in the years between 1608 and 1892? And that obese shirker has hatched 10 eggs in the nest our ancestors built with their sweat and blood? His opinion doesn't count for anything in my book.
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2012-06-26 16:11
Like most Right-wingers, he is ungrateful for the bounty of America provided by those who came before him. He takes everything he has been given for granted like a true spoiled brat. Only that he should have to walk in the shoes of the sick and the poor to realize the beauty and the promise that is America.
 
 
-3 # jimattrell 2012-06-26 17:29
Hmmm .... You must have had a bad experience with conservatives at some point because I don't know anyone like what you describe and I live where 00% of folks are conservative and Democrats are rightfully in hiding because they think the Govt should support the sick and the poor; not us 99%...
 
 
+6 # Vardoz 2012-06-26 14:16
What we are facing is a total corporate coup and god help us if Romney gets elected. Our congress and the Supreme court have become our enemies!
 
 
+6 # allie 2012-06-26 14:40
Scalia is so openly far to the right, it's ridiculous. He sure makes no bones about his partisanship. He’s a fully biased Supreme Court judge along with his buddies Roberts and Thomas. That is not their role while serving on the nation's court. How dare Scalia criticize the POTUS. He makes me sick.
 
 
-5 # Montague 2012-06-26 15:24
First, the monarchy has NO power in the UK. I may not agree with Scalia, but the fact is the court was ASKED to give an opinion so he had every right to make dissenting comments. You can't ask courts to rule and then say they're to be neutral - contradiction in terms. The world as it is doesn't have open borders. Nor open minds. It's sad that ordinary folk end up voting with extremists and that anyone who doesn't immediately conform to progressive opinion is deluged with negative votes, even when like myself they are not pro-right and actually aren't Scalia fans. This site is becoming kneejerk city, preaching to the coverted. What's the point? Think about that before you press the minus button. What is it achieving.
 
 
+1 # bluepilgrim 2012-06-26 18:17
A legal ruling is not the same as a political opinion. A legal ruling should be politically neutral. No contradiction.
 
 
+1 # MJnevetS 2012-06-27 08:37
Quoting Montague:
the fact is the court was ASKED to give an opinion so he had every right to make dissenting comments.
Montague, to educate you, when an appeal is sought, the parties to the argument (call them Appellant-the one who files the appeal and Appellee-the one who responds to the appeal)(also Petitioner and Respondent, but lets not confuse things) Each make an argument about what LEGAL ISSUE they feel merits review by the Supreme Court. To merit review it must be either of constitutional import, bear on Federal laws and/or be a decision to end confusion when there are opposing opinions in different circuit courts (yes, this is an over-simplifica tion) The Appellant/Petit ioner actually sets forth the legal issues on which a decision in being sought. In this case, the issue was whether the Arizona law is constitutional, or whether it was usurping a Federally controlled area of law. The judicial 'opinion' is not a time for a judge to vent their personal beliefs. The 'opinion' is to be based upon the law and its application to the specific case, using statutory language and legal precedents (prior legal rulings). Thus the opinion is, and should be, a LEGAL conclusion as to what the law requires. It is not, as you seem to suppose, a time for a judge to express his personal opinions regarding a sitting president, which is abhorrent to a fair neutral judiciary and as far as I know, unheard of in American jurisprudence.
 
 
+3 # MendoChuck 2012-06-26 15:40
What a sad state we are in . . . .
This whole commentary sounds just like the Congress.
To bad each of those that post here do not post a solution rather than trying to outdo each other.

But then again it would seem that posters on this site would rather be RIGHT than have something to say that would help this country solve its problems.
 
 
+6 # Saoirse 2012-06-26 15:44
I have no doubt that Justice Scalia's decision relative to Arizona v. The United States, was edited after the President issued his Executive Order to allow immigrant children without papers to remain in the United States. The President clearly had the temerity to step on the Justice's opinion and he would find a public way to slap him for it. When a public servant, and that is what Justice Scalia is, assumes a can do no wrong persona, it is time to leave the stage or in this case the bench.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-06-26 18:12
Quoting Saoirse:
I have no doubt that Justice Scalia's decision relative to Arizona v. The United States, was edited after the President issued his Executive Order to allow immigrant children without papers to remain in the United States. The President clearly had the temerity to step on the Justice's opinion and he would find a public way to slap him for it. When a public servant, and that is what Justice Scalia is, assumes a can do no wrong persona, it is time to leave the stage or in this case the bench.

Absolutely! That's why life terms for these overly-inflated Lawyers-With-Ro bes is beyond ludicrous. One of these days we'll have a Tudor, or Alice in Wonderland "Off with his (her?) head" pronouncement when one of them completely loses their seemingly tenuous grip on the world around them in their cloistered splendor. Scabious-Scalia seems like the best candidate after this latest unwonted declamation from his perilously (for all of us) and lofty seat.
Is there even a process to begin recall or impeachment of a do-no-wrong entity like this (Tweedledee Thomas would be so lost without him, so that makes two of 'em to get shet of for the price of one!)? -I really want to know, seriously.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2012-06-26 15:52
Wonder what Tweedledee (Thomas) did or said (usually says nothing) in support of his string-jerker's antediluvian pronouncement from on high? And did Opus Dei have to pre-approve it?
And those reactionary twits who post allegations that "Illegals" have murdered ranchers", and other such nonsense, where do you lot dredge up your fantasy data?
It's hard enough to deal with the "Coyotes", Border Patrol, hostile territory, rattlesnakes and those brave, heavily-armed and outside the law "Minute-men" and their spotter planes -I've actually met one of their pilots- and still have energy to actually seek work, to bother the inhabitants on the US side of the line.
Methinks you confuse these poor folks with drug traffickers who are dedicatedly supplying their customers in the Fragmented States with the fixes they and their widely-distribu ted client base need after all, just to reinforce what a joke the "War on Drugs" and the continued refusal to legalize Hemp and Marijuana is in this so-misguided nation of self-righteous, blinkered prigs!
The bottom would also fall out of the restaurant trade -especially at the upper-end, where no doubt the looney Governor of Az' and injustices Scalia/Thomas nosh, if all illegals were sent back. But worry not; according to the BBC, there is a decline in the desire to seek work "al norte". In fact many are going back as they find the depressed conditions and reduction of freedoms not worth the bother.
Happy now?
 
 
-2 # Montague 2012-06-26 16:22
Westwinds, you completely misundertood my "extremist" comment. I'm talking about racists like British National Party attracting votes from folks who'd normally never go there, cos none of the main parties want to discuss immigration concerns. I'm not calling our beloved tree huggers extremists! MendoChuck: you are SO right (er, I mean correct, lest I be misunderstood!) .
 
 
0 # isafakir 2012-06-26 16:32
he's a criminal
 
 
+1 # Montague 2012-06-26 16:53
PS: Westwinds, can you cite refs for Thatcher ballot rigging? No sarcasm intended, I really want to know. I hated her (Blair too - I'm an equal op hater of polticians) but she was in power ages and I never heard it said she rigged a UK election except by help of Rupert Murdoch.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2012-06-26 18:23
Quoting Montague:
PS: Westwinds, can you cite refs for Thatcher ballot rigging? No sarcasm intended, I really want to know. I hated her (Blair too - I'm an equal op hater of polticians) but she was in power ages and I never heard it said she rigged a UK election except by help of Rupert Murdoch.

No, I don't think that the wicked witch ever rigged an election; she just went after the Falklands; a bit like Dimwits Bush & Co. took full advantage of 9'11 (if it hadn't happened, they'd have had to invent it).
Thatcher was all but kaput after her poll-tax adventures but she revved up the remnants of Churchillian/ Victorian jingoism to save her sorry butt via a small but "patriotic" war, for a wind-blasted residual South Atlantic colony so far removed from home that many Brits had no idea where it was located. Neil Kinnock -the last REAL British Labor candidate- should have been PM but for this little bit of opportunism.
It's all a game folks.
 
 
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 16:58
Obama should use his NDAA authority and round up at least 4 justices, and all the republicans in Congress and ship them to "unknown locations"...th e only time he should use the NDAA.
 
 
+3 # Vardoz 2012-06-26 18:25
Senator Bernie Sanders from VT is right when he says that Citizens United has made it possible for Billionaires to buy our govt. We are going down folks and these are the guys who take crushing us!
 
 
+1 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 19:58
and they are asking that the Tree of Liberty be watered with the blood of Patriots!
 
 
+2 # Vardoz 2012-06-26 18:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u91LHH-vkBY&feature=youtu.be
Listen to Sen Bernie Sanders regarding Citizens United.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2012-06-26 19:09
The problem that I honestly have with those who want "immigration reform" is that they are basically asking the government to ignore the law. I am the son of someone who immigrated here legally, and it's hard for me to get past that they are basically asking that the law not apply to them. If I immigrated illegally to their home countries they would deport me without question.
 
 
+1 # Bodiotoo 2012-06-26 20:02
Reagan granted amnesty...and we started "fresh"...so explain why 'our' government is having such a difficult time...and maybe, just maybe if we didn't make such an issue of "Illegal" people would come here and stay if they found work and "self deport" when it was not economical to stay here.
White America (I am from a WASP upbringing dating to 1661) is going to have to accept that the nation is "browning"...Ge t over it.
 
 
+1 # Rain17 2012-06-27 11:41
Again it comes to this question:

What right do they have to be here?

Again what "immigration reform" activists are demanding that we simply ignore the law. Either we enforce or immigration laws or we don't. Is it fair to the others who have been waiting years to come here legally?

What would happen if I immigrated illegally to Mexico, demanded in-state tuition at their universities, demanded drivers licenses, demanded welfare, and other benefits reserved for legal residents and Mexican citizens? Do you think they would let me have any of that? No they would immediately deport me and handle it as a routine matter.

I could theoretically support an "amnesty" if it came with the following conditions:

1) After the amnesty the US will aggressively enforce immigration policy and there will be no exceptions.
2) Illegal immigrants will no longer qualify for in-state tuition at universities and other benefits reserved for US citizens.
3) Employers will actually face significant fines if they hire illegals.
4) The US will issue tamper-proof biometric sensors and national ID cards to those who are legal immigrants and US residents

What it seems to be is that many "illegal immigrant" activists are asking for an exception in the law. What gives them the right to expect it?
 
 
+2 # RMDC 2012-06-27 02:52
"Arizona bears the brunt of the country's illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. "

This statement is false. It is the lie that the right wing immigrant hating minority of the US has been repeating over and over. Most people in Arizona don't have a problem with immigrants. Arizona is about 30% Mexican anyway.

In repeating a lie in a supreme court opinion, Scalia only shows where he stands politically. Time for him to retire. Maybe he can retire to Arizona and complain about Mexicans along with Joe Arpaio.
 
 
0 # tm7devils 2012-06-27 06:27
I think I can help, in more ways than one!
Give Scalia a badge and a gun and put him on the border...
 
 
+2 # historywriter 2012-06-27 08:55
What a great idea!Except that he'd probably besmirch Arizona even more by trying to outdo Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
 
 
+1 # jerryball 2012-06-28 19:04
He's overdosed on the broccoli. So much broccoli he's shooting fava beans out his rear. Why is this dreadful old Guinea dissing deportation while his sugar daddy Reagan brought him in. He doesn't remember Reagan was the biggest Amnesty Generator in U.S. History?
 
 
0 # Hexalpa 2012-06-29 08:40
Antonin Scalia said:
" But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."

Mr. Scalia, Thou art easily boggled.(me)
 
 
0 # rhgreen 2012-07-11 21:23
Can a President remove a Supreme Court justice for malfeasance? I wish it were so. Everyone, however unhappy you may be with Obama, please remember the main reason for voting him back in again - to make sure we don't have a Republican president who would appoint more right-wing-nuts like Scalia to the Court.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN