AZ turns to U. S. Supreme Court for relief

Today marks a much awaited legal milestone. Arizonans will be paying close attention to the oral arguments made to the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States. The case concerns Arizona’s attempt to aid the federal government in restricting the flow of illegal immigration and the Obama Administration’s problematic lawsuit against the State of Arizona brought by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Video) within weeks of passage of SB 1070.

Eight  Justices — former Solicitor General Elena Kagan has recused herself due to prior involvement on the issue on behalf of the administration — will decide whether the federal government’s lack of enforcement — precludes Arizona’s efforts at cooperative law enforcement through the passage of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act — more popularly known as SB 1070, which mirrors federal law.

Congress has acknowledged that federal, state, and local law enforcement must work together to combat the influx of foreign nationals into our country.

The Heritage Foundation’s Elizabeth Garvey provides an excellent overview of the case, titled  Supreme Court Immigration Showdown: Why States Can Enforce Immigration Laws.

Transcripts will he posted here on the same day an argument is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The audio recordings of all oral arguments are available to the public at the end of each argument week. Listen here.

The Court generally hears two one-hour arguments a day, at 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. There is a three-hour time difference between Washington D.C. and Arizona.

Follow Live Blogging from the Court via WSJ’s Washington Wire.

10 Responses to AZ turns to U. S. Supreme Court for relief

  1. Capt. Marvel says:

    Eighty-One Republican Members Of Congress, Including Arizona’s Rep. Trent Franks, Texas Rep. Lamar Smith and Iowa Rep. Steve King, have filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting our much needed law. There is a good reason it is being copied throughout the entire nation. We have a right to defend our borders from invasion. We have a right to expect our laws to be respected. Obama risks American lives providing security for other nations thousands of miles away and refuses to secure our own US border.

  2. Matt DeGennaro says:

    Here’s the real political issue you never read about in the local and pathetic pro-Mexico, anti-Arizona newspaper. Back in 2010 after the passage of SB1070, and as numerous other states began considering similar laws, Democrat governors complained to the White House of the political fallout of opposing the Arizona measure. Increasingly scarce jobs in their states (thanks to Obama’s bungling of the economy) were being lost to their own citizens at an alarming rate as illegals were taking over jobs in construction, at processing plants and other industries.
    This admission was in the liberal New York Times. Read it:

  3. Villanova says:

    A glimmer of hope!! Liberal Associated Press begrudingly reports “The Supreme Court appears ready to allow Arizona to enforce a state law provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
    The justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are not buying the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check part of a controversial state law aimed at driving illegal immigrants out of the state.”

    Let’s keep our fingers crossed on this! Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a court that understands the magnitude and severity of this massive problem that begs for real constraints?

  4. Seen It All says:

    Thanks to Seeing Red AZ for including the Wall Street Journal Washington Wire’s live blogging. It’s a great tool for getting a real flavor of what’s taking place today.

    Illegal immigration and our dangerously porous borders are issues that impact each and every citizen of the United States. Arizonans live and breathe it on a daily basis. Mexico has aided and abetted this invasion, even producing comic books to assist illiterate illegal trespassers in their quest to find the best routes, water stations put out by foolish church groups and how to avoid detection.

    Mexico has everything to gain by encouraging their young men to leave their own homeland Remittances sent back to Mexico total billions of dollars each year and between those American dollars and their drug trafficking hooking American kids on heroin and cocaine, Mexico benefits greatly. We need to wake up, and fast!

  5. State Committeeman says:

    Since its inception, SB 1070 has been widely supported by the American people in general and Arizonans in particular. I’m grateful to Gov. Brewer for signing it and the Honorable Russell Pearce for crafting it and shepherding it through the legislature. For his efforts on our behalf, he was removed from office by a group of malcontents and under a sham election process that allowed those who were not registered Republicans to vote for his ouster.

  6. Ellsworth says:

    Drudge Report has this Washington Times report up under the heading “Obama’s lawyer chokes again.”

  7. teapartypatriot says:

    Imagine the hysteria of the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist extremists if the Supremes actually follow the US Constitution and the rule of law and uphold SB1070 and flush OBOZOCARE ! Why that could drive them to mass suicides (a la jim jones’ supporters) except that none of them has the guts to ever do the right thing.

  8. teapartypatriot says:

    BTW: Isn’t about time that America gets a president and congress that will no longer put up with the 9th Circus Court – which bases ALL decisions on lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist ideology and nothing else – and disband that court and replace ALL members with actual judges that are sworn-in to UPHOLD the US Constitution and the American Rule of Law ?

  9. Frankly Speaking says:

    This case provides a rematch between highly regarded D.C. lawyer Paul Clement and Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who argued health care cases last March.

    Clement argued on behalf of Arizona and Gov.Brewer, telling the justices that SB1070, “borrowed the federal standard as its own” as it tackled Arizona’s “disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration.”

    How much clearer could that be? That’s what Russell Pearce said from the beginning.

  10. LD 7 PC says:

    This is AZ Attorney General Tom Horne’s public statement on the Supreme Court Hearing on S.B. 1070. Horne is in Washington, DC with Gov. Brewer, the Hon.Russell Pearce and others from the state. We are well represented:

    Today’s hearing went well. The Obama Administration took the
    outrageous step of suing one of the 50 states for trying to enforce
    federal law. Arizona has been hit disproportionately hard by illegal
    immigration and the state had no choice but to pass SB 1070 to protect
    our own citizens.

    I have read the transcript of today’s SB 1070 hearing in the US
    Supreme Court. Section 2, the most important of the 4 sections of
    SB1070 which are being challenged, appears to have the support of
    Liberal as well as Conservative Justices, and mainly with a large
    unanimous vote. Section 2 requires Police Officers to engage in a
    lawful arrest or stop, and to have reasonable suspicion, to inquire
    with ICE about whether the person is in this country legally. Even two
    of the most Liberal Justices, Sotamayor and Breyer, asked questions
    indicating they may vote to hold that section of the law

    The lawyer for Arizona pointed out that a Phoenix Police officer had
    been shot by a suspect who had been accused of attempted murder in El
    Salvador, had been pulled over three times before encountering this
    police officer, but had never had his immigration status checked. That
    was due to the City of Phoenix policies that would be illegal under
    Section 2. Had inquiry been made before he encountered the Phoenix
    officer, that officer would not have been shot.

    The comments of several Justices were very encouraging. Justice
    Scalia noted that under SB 1070, “Arizona is not trying to kick out
    anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong
    here.” A number of the other provisions at issue are state copies of
    Federal laws where the Obama Administration claims that states cannot
    enforce identical laws in parallel. Justice Scalia added the analogy
    that federal law prohibits bank robbery, and stated, “Can it be made a
    state crime to rob those banks? I think it is.” And Chief Justice
    Roberts noted that the federal role in enforcing immigration law is
    not harmed by SB 1070 since “all it does is notify the Federal
    Government, here’s someone who is here illegally, here’s someone who
    is removable.”

    Most troubling is the Federal Government’s argument that SB 1070 is
    unconstitutional because Arizona interferes with the Federal monopoly
    on foreign relations. Arizona has not opened any embassies. It has
    passed a law that foreign countries disagree with. If a Federal Judge
    can invalidate a state law on the grounds that other countries
    disagree with it (and it therefore interferes with the Federal
    monopoly on foreign relations) America’s sovereignty will be severely
    compromised. Justice Scalia asked the Obama Administration lawyer if
    “we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico…
    (that) sounded like what you were saying.”

    Finally, I was gratified to see that even the Obama administration
    lawyer agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ contention that this case
    has nothing to do with ethnic and racial profiling. SB 1070 has never
    allowed racial profiling, and that is a persistent myth that should
    end today.

%d bloggers like this: