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)
Scalia Attacks Obama on Deportation
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.
|
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. |
 24 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 24 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good point, Dave!
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
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.
We should document all immigrants and enforce fair and equal employment laws.
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.
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!
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.
They provide many benefits to our country. Better get used to it. You are about to be in a minorigty
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.
Google up "Youtube WTC7 Silverstein" and borrow a brain that works for a time.
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.
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
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.
We liberals see history, and we know history to be one of the best tools available to examine mankind's yin and yang.
You are hopelessly ill-informed.
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...
Sarcasm is my middle name. Give it back!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 .
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
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.
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.
How about 'the one the most voters wanted wins'? It's called democracy.
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.
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?
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.
Scalia's job is to rule on th eissues in front of him.
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.
“‘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?
Very well said, worth repeating
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).
I do not think Scalia gives a , one way or the other.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Label GMO
No Pipeline, no fracking,
Jobs in america, amreica products there is lots more Anyone ready to start
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.
Such language - such hate.
One wonders why he and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are such close friends, pals and so much respect each other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Listen to Sen Bernie Sanders regarding Citizens United.
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.
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?
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.
Give Scalia a badge and a gun and put him on the border...
" 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)
RSS feed for comments to this post