Tag Archive for ‘SCOTUS’
The intro to Justice Scalia’s partial dissent in Arizona v. United States is a perfect demonstration of today’s self-contradictory “conservatism.” It takes with one hand, then pretends to give back with the other (emphasis mine):
“The United States is an indivisible ‘Union of sovereign States.’ Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”
Proof of this “conservative” schizophrenia can be found in Mark Krikorian’s instant reaction to the ruling, which was to call it a victory for immigration restrictionists and blame the liberal media for “spinning” the story to suggest otherwise (emphasis mine):
“The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? Making it a state misdemeanor for an illegal alien to apply for employment would be nice, for instance, but it’s not even a federal crime yet.”
There are some real stunners in today’s convoluted ruling from the Supremes regarding Arizona v. United States. Here are some of my favorites:
“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”
“Federal governance is extensive and complex.”
“Removal is a civil matter, . . .
” . . . and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all.”
“States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance.”
“Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”* **
*I made that one up.
**Not really: It’s real.