Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 116

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

  1. #16
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by CombatTargeteer View Post
    Loved Scalia's comment on Obama's recent political announcement on immigrants.
    I found those to be particularly unwarranted and even inappropriate. It's not really a SCOTUS justice's job to mete out political commentary.

  2. #17
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    Is being declared preempted by federal law the same as being unconstitutional?
    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.

  3. #18
    All Big 10
    FLA4NEB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Central FLA
    Posts
    18,316
    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.
    So technically they are striking it down because it is covered by Federal law and the actually actions on their own aren't unconstitutional.
    I am Fred Lawrence Anderson and I approve this post.

  4. #19
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by FLA4NEB View Post
    So technically they are striking it down because it is covered by Federal law and the actually actions on their own aren't unconstitutional.
    Correct.

    But it may be more complicated than that... on a call now, but will try to write more on it later.

  5. #20
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    117,452
    Here is the complete PDF....76 pages....interesting stuff from what I have read thus far....


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...11-182b5e1.pdf
    Notre Dame only had one Rudy but Nebraska gets a new crop of Rudys every season

  6. #21
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    117,452
    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

  7. #22
    Moderator
    Red Reign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    117,452
    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

  8. #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


  9. #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

  10. #25
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    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.

  11. #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


  12. #27
    Moderator
    Red Dawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    10,778
    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.

  13. #28
    Scout Team
    Lakewood Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    lakewood,ca
    Posts
    4,913
    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-/

  14. #29
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    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.

  15. #30
    Travel Squad
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,800

    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/
    “If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.” Marcus Aurelius







Posting Permissions

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