No Healthcare Ruling Today As SCOTUS Rejects Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law In Obama Defeat

Tyler Durden's picture

Those hoping for supreme court to overturn socialism today will have to wait a few more days:


But SCOTUS did slap Obama in the face nonetheless:


Reuters explains:

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants on Monday, rejecting the Obama administration's stance that only the U.S. government should enforce immigration laws in the United States.


The nation's highest court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, upheld the state law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.


But in a split decision, the justices also ruled that the three other challenged provisions went too far in intruding on federal law, including one provision that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to work and another that requires them to carry their documents.


Arizona, on the southwest border with Mexico, two years ago became the first of a handful of U.S. states to pass laws aimed at driving illegal immigrants out, including requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone detained and suspected of being in the country illegally.


The battle over the law goes to the heart of a fierce national debate between Democrats and Republicans over what to do with the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.


Critics have said the Arizona law could lead to ethnic and racial profiling of the fast-growing Hispanic population in the United States. Hispanics are the largest U.S. minority group.


Other parts of the Arizona law require immigrants to carry their papers at all times; ban illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places; and allow police to arrest immigrants without a warrant if an officer believes they have committed a crime that would make them deportable.

From CNN:

How did Americans feel about the Arizona immigration law before the Supreme Court ruled?


A CNN/ORC poll conducted on May 29-31 found that 75% were in favor of it while 2% opposed it.


CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.


[Updated at 10:26 a.m. ET] The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.


The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.


[Updated at 10:23 a.m. ET] CNN's Senior Political Analyst David Gergen weighs in on the Arizona immigration ruling:


“The court apparently has said, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ Those are centralized powers and you can’t step in.”


The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.


This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona.

Never a boring day.

Full AZ ruling (link):


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Pladizow's picture

Nothing of any substance will be allowed to occur prior to Novenmer.

Manthong's picture

“This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona.”

Correction: This is a win for the federal government and a loss for the states of the United States of America.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Perhaps this is how secessionist movements start.

dwdollar's picture

Not until Americans are comfortable spilling the blood of other Americans will any secessionist movement have real traction. To think a secessionist movement comes without violence is folly.

Fish Gone Bad's picture

Surprisingly most people have little qualms about taking up arms against one another if there is an advantage in doing so. 

macholatte's picture

Surprisingly most people have little qualms about taking up arms against one another if there is an advantage in doing so.


Yea, like stealing a pair of sneakers or getting to the front of the Walmart line on Black Friday.

iinthesky's picture

Who were the dissenting justices?

Waffen's picture

Uhm, secession is not a violent act.

Now will brigade homeland Be sent in if a state tries it? Yes.

It will take a collapse of the federal government before states secede.

It's our only hope for freedom

JPM Hater001's picture

"Not until Americans are comfortable spilling the blood of other Americans"

I'm in.

azzhatter's picture

I don't think Arizona is a good candidate for secession but Texas could be. Arizona has no water, no agriculture, little oil and a bunch of old people. Texas on the other hand has ports, oil, large economy and a lot of other things going for it. It would be my first choice for a new country. Maybe AZ can do a JV with Texas.


One little problem unless you enjoy hand to hand combat. Houston has 1/2 million illegals and another million that are sympathetic.  "clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.

Better think about holding the line at Oklahoma.

I'm thinking Montana might be the last fallback line .





Grinder74's picture

How does the reporter think it's a win for the federal government?  The CENTRAL part of the law remained intact.  The rest of the law was just redundant to existing federal law.

Clinteastwood's picture

Gergen isn't a reporter, he's a partisan Democrat.  His ramblings are all spin for President Zero.

SteinRobyn17's picture

I was surprised when I saw that Justice Roberts joined the opinion of the liberal judges along with Justice Kennedy. Then I spotted that had Justice Roberts sided with the conservative judges the decision would have gone to the 9th Circuit where the whole law would have been thrown out. My sense is Justice Roberts would have sided with the conservative side if Justice Kennedy had completed so. In so doing Justice Roberts allowed part of the law to still stand. Lovely for Justice Roberts!

battle axe's picture

But lets wait for the big ruling, the Healthcare one. Then let the fireworks begin.

Rahm's picture

It's always a good day, when the headline starts out with obama and being slapped in the same sentence!

mayhem_korner's picture



Particlularly when it is unspecific and leaves open to the imagination whether it's Barry or Michelle...

Problem Is's picture

If there is any Obama bitch slappin'...

It is Michelle bitch slappin' Bullshit Barry...

Ms. Erable's picture

OK, CNN gives the spin - what's the truth?

Ms. Erable's picture

Also from the Communist News Network:

"CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally."

Does it apply if they suspect you're here illegally, since that's a law that is already on the books?

azzhatter's picture

I have a question. Bullshit Barry's new immigration policy allows illegals who served in the military to stay. May I ask how the fuck an illegal got into the military in the first place?

Osmium's picture

I guess “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” applies to more than sexual orientation.

Grinder74's picture

In other "sexual orientation" news, a 32-year old woman was sentened to jail for giving a blow job to her 16yr old son, claiming they were "genetically attracted" to each other.  Waiting for the Left and homo agenda to fight for her right to "love whoever she wants to love".

Marginal Call's picture

Federal power over state power.  You expected different? 

Ms. Erable's picture

After 150+ years of federal usurpation? Not really.

Payne's picture

Why doesn't AZ toughen the vagrancy laws and require everyone to posess a picture ID issued by a Government agency.

tarsubil's picture

Is this a joke about the coming inevitable police state?

Grinder74's picture

I do miss that old Illinois license that actually was paper with cheap lamination around it.

otto skorzeny's picture

rethink what you said-where does it say in the constitution that you must possess a valid govt ID to walk the streets of a "free" country. you can volunteer to be the first one with your "ID" to be tattoed to your forehead by DHS

GeezerGeek's picture

Requiring picture IDs is only legal for Democrat party functions like Obama fundraisers.

the not so mighty maximiza's picture

Now everybody come to the US and vote for Obama,,, NOW!!!!!!!

Nagelstudio's picture

Einkaufen in Berlin | Modeblog | Wohnung mieten

Dingaling, the people that "own" the Repubs are of the same ilk as those running FOX...You have the Master-Slave relationship backwards....

No one is denying that the Left has talking points, just that they have been no where near as effective....

I ain't going to defend CNN, they are a bunch or irrelevant hacks, whereas FOX is a different beast, Goebbels would have been amazed at what they have achieved. As for MSNBC, c'mon, does anyone really care what they have to say?  I certainly don't...


roulette system | group decision making | DivaMap

GeneMarchbanks's picture

Arizona is Mexico right?

Uncle Remus's picture

Patience. Some of the signs are still in English.

Marginal Call's picture

When most the water runs out most the white people will leave. No hydro power, no AC, no gringos.

Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Excuse Gene, he is drunk and from Europe.

Ms. Erable's picture

Sounds redundant when you put it like that.

Ghordius's picture

well, he might be in Europe, but I am from Europe and I really, really don't understand what this is about. Could someone explain it without using propaganda phrases?

on one side I see that Arizona employs lots and lots of Mexicans for dirty work - same as the Spaniards having North Africans coming for the fruit picking season and such

on the other side the conservatives would like to dam this immigration by having a functioning wall or something similar

and finally, Washington telling Arizona that borders and key legislation about police forces are not a State's turf

now, we europeans on the continent don't have those English Law principles. our police asks for IDs and has a right to check on the identity of any person on the street. I had countless Yank friends over the years berating me how much freer America is, because of this. But I also hear from the same friends that nowadays the same American Police searches and seizes as if it were in a civil war, something our police is not allowed to do lightly. A Very Stupid Question: what is this all about? Only a State Rights Question dear to it's activists? Shouldn't the same conservatives that want less Mexicans be pushing for ID's? Which still does not answer the other Stupid Question: who is going to do the dirty work, if all this functions?

Note that I don't have any political opinion on the US parties, so I'd appreciate a balanced answer.

Marginal Call's picture

You've actualy got a firm handle on it.  


Don't forget the part about our housing market tanking another 25% if we kick all the illegals out. 

CommunityStandard's picture

Housing market will tank another 25% anyway.

Ghordius's picture

thx, but pls explain: illegal immigrants own houses? or is it the rental market you are writing about?

Marginal Call's picture

Doesn't matter if they own or rent (they do both-but mostly rent).  If they leave rentals empty  that's millions more empty properties with nobody to fill them and then the land lords can't pay their mortgage.  It would set off another wave of foreclosures and push rent prices and home prices down.


We already have more houses than people.  Take away another ten million people and everything collapses. 

Spastica Rex's picture

Illegal immigration in the US is an apartheid system that addresses labor costs and perceived future demographic problems. Probably about the same as everyplace else.

blunderdog's picture

Business interests conflict over illegals, that's all. 

The political battles are just symptoms of the proxy-war being fought between the military-police complex and the globalists.