Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 116

Thread: 3 parts of Arizona's immigration law declared unconsitutional

  1. #21
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    102,703
    Agree....

    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I found those to be particularly unwarranted and even inappropriate. It's not really a SCOTUS justice's job to meet out political commentary.
    Notre Dame only had one Rudy but Nebraska gets a new crop of Rudys every season

  2. #22
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    102,703
    Brewer's press release was 'interesting'.....then again she had to spin it I suppose.....

    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    It's interesting because Scalia slammed the decision (citing some veryinteresting and controversial cases in support of his position... cases that have mainly been considered "on the wrong side of history" since), and both parties claimed victory. I thought Brewer's press release was particularly strange.

    Anyway, does this mean that an AZ officer can check immigration status, but the person may say (a) I don't have it with me, sorry, or (b) yep, I'm illegal, but you can't arrest me or do anything else, anyway.

    Probably a legally sound result, but it's going to reveal what a mess our policy is in this realm.
    Notre Dame only had one Rudy but Nebraska gets a new crop of Rudys every season

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Generally, no, except to the extent the law violates the Supremacy Clause... the underlying action, though, doesn't necessarily violate any other part of the Constitution.
    Preempted laws are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court would not have the power to strike down a state law unless it violated the federal constitition in some way. That said, you are correct that the statutes at issue were not held to violate any other portion of the Constitution (like the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause). But they were unconstitional nonetheless.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  4. #24
    Guest

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lincoln, Nebraska
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Reign View Post
    Brewer's press release was 'interesting'.....then again she had to spin it I suppose.....
    Sounds like everybody is simultaneously spinning this decision as both a win and a loss

  5. #25
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,028
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Preempted laws are unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court would not have the power to strike down a state law unless it violated the federal constitition in some way. That said, you are correct that the statutes at issue were not held to violate any other portion of the Constitution (like the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause). But they were unconstitional nonetheless.
    I think he was asking if the underlying actions themselves were constitutional violations. In theory, none of AZ's actions are necessarily unconstitutional, absent the SC, though it's arguable the policy may in practice result in racial profiling (and its associated harrassment of otherwise innocent parties) and would be therefore unconstitutional under the EPC. However, that question doesn't necessarily need to be reached in a facial challenge.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I think he was asking if the underlying actions themselves were constitutional violations. In theory, none of AZ's actions are necessarily unconstitutional, absent the SC, though it's arguable the policy may in practice result in racial profiling (and its associated harrassment of otherwise innocent parties) and would be therefore unconstitutional under the EPC. However, that question doesn't necessarily need to be reached in a facial challenge.
    Absolutely. At the end of the majority opinion the Court made clear that an additional challenge of the surviving provision could be made based on its application in practice.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  7. #27
    Moderator
    Red Dawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    10,627
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    Absolutely. At the end of the majority opinion the Court made clear that an additional challenge of the surviving provision could be made based on its application in practice.
    I think that is why Roberts yelled from the bench "see you boys again real soon" immediately following the conclusion of arguments.

  8. #28
    Scout Team
    Lakewood Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    lakewood,ca
    Posts
    4,276
    Apparently this all for naught as the feds from orders from the top have decided if AZ calls they will not answer the call.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/

  9. #29
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakewood Husker View Post
    Apparently this all for naught as the feds from orders from the top have decided if AZ calls they will not answer the call.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/
    That's not what the quotes in the article say.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  10. #30
    Junior Varsity
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,805

    Scalia and Stare Decisis

    Preemptive analysis of what could be a moment of "whiplash" for Scalia -- interesting stuff.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...iplash-moment/
    "The purpose of argument, should not be victory, but progress." proverb

  11. #31
    Junior Varsity
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,805
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    I found those to be particularly unwarranted and even inappropriate. It's not really a SCOTUS justice's job to mete out political commentary.
    Personally, I prefer a supreme court justice that is willing to read the entirety of the law they are deliberating on -- and be somewhat fluent with the most recent version. I guess that's too much to ask?

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/AMDSASTW...bout-Obamacare
    "The purpose of argument, should not be victory, but progress." proverb

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Personally, I prefer a supreme court justice that is willing to read the entirety of the law they are deliberating on -- and be somewhat fluent with the most recent version. I guess that's too much to ask?

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/AMDSASTW...bout-Obamacare
    When the bill is 2,700 pages long and only a handful of provisions are actually at issue, yes, absolutely that is too much to ask. The justices do not need to be familiar with every single provision of Obamacare when the individual mandate is all that is at issue. Judges don't need to be familiar with the entire bill in order make a ruling on that discrete issue.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  13. #33
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Personally, I prefer a supreme court justice that is willing to read the entirety of the law they are deliberating on -- and be somewhat fluent with the most recent version. I guess that's too much to ask?

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/AMDSASTW...bout-Obamacare
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    When the bill is 2,700 pages long and only a handful of provisions are actually at issue, yes, absolutely that is too much to ask. The justices do not need to be familiar with every single provision of Obamacare when the individual mandate is all that is at issue. Judges don't need to be familiar with the entire bill in order make a ruling on that discrete issue.
    Aww, how unaccommodating of you, Chi! Just because its twice as long as Tolstoy's War and Peace and consists of nothing but dry bureaucratic regulations, you think its unreasonable to expect the Supremes to not only have read every word, but to go even further and actually "be somewhat fluent with the most recent version", implying they should have probably read multiple versions and know the differences?

  14. #34
    Scout Team
    gypsyhusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Redondo Beach.
    Posts
    4,502
    So in other words, if congress doesn't know what is in it in order to pass it, then SCOTUS doesn't need to know what is in it in order to rule on it. Logical.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    When the bill is 2,700 pages long and only a handful of provisions are actually at issue, yes, absolutely that is too much to ask. The justices do not need to be familiar with every single provision of Obamacare when the individual mandate is all that is at issue. Judges don't need to be familiar with the entire bill in order make a ruling on that discrete issue.
    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”
    Samuel Adams

  15. #35
    Husker Immortal
    ThotDoc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Hagerstown, Maryland
    Posts
    65,523
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    It's interesting because Scalia slammed the decision (citing some veryinteresting and controversial cases in support of his position... cases that have mainly been considered "on the wrong side of history" since), and both parties claimed victory. I thought Brewer's press release was particularly strange.

    Anyway, does this mean that an AZ officer can check immigration status, but the person may say (a) I don't have it with me, sorry, or (b) yep, I'm illegal, but you can't arrest me or do anything else, anyway.

    Probably a legally sound result, but it's going to reveal what a mess our policy is in this realm.
    That's how it looks to me. So, if AZ police pick up an illegal, will Immigration officials just release them on the street again??
    "Humility is not thinking less of yourself, it's thinking of yourself less." C. S. Lewis



  16. #36
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,028
    Quote Originally Posted by ThotDoc View Post
    That's how it looks to me. So, if AZ police pick up an illegal, will Immigration officials just release them on the street again??
    They aren't allowed to "pick up an illegal" unless they are arresting the person for another wise valid purpose. And if that was a felony, then the person is high priority for deportation... so, no they aren't just going to let the person go.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  17. #37
    Administrator
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    21,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakewood Husker View Post
    Apparently this all for naught as the feds from orders from the top have decided if AZ calls they will not answer the call.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-agreements-/
    Wow, telling the state we are not going to work with you anymore. Lame.


    Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!



    Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
    "I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)


  18. #38
    Society Crazy Indeed
    Pops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    45,567
    how does this all affect everyones day to day living?


    I cannot be bought, compromised, detoured, lured away, turned back, deluded, or delayed. I will not flinch in the face of sacrifice, hesitate in the presence of adversity, negotiate at the table of the enemy, ponder at the pool of popularity, or meander in the maze of mediocrity.I wont give up, shut up, let up, until I have stayed up, stored up, prayed up, paid up, and showed up for all wounded children.

  19. #39
    All Legend

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    16,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    Personally, I prefer a supreme court justice that is willing to read the entirety of the law they are deliberating on -- and be somewhat fluent with the most recent version. I guess that's too much to ask?

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/AMDSASTW...bout-Obamacare
    His point on the 2,700 pages regards the question of whether the Court should go line by line striking or upholding the law, or toss the whole law and let Congress have another go at it.

    But, to a grander point, why should the judges read it when I'd bet not one of the congress people, including the sponsors, read it in its entirety.


    That's a joke.
    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  20. #40
    Blackshirt

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskermedic View Post
    Wow, telling the state we are not going to work with you anymore. Lame.
    The Supreme Court clearly indicated that it was Arizona's responsibility to work with the federal government, not the other way around.
    I cried because I had no shoes until I saw a man that had no feet.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •