This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

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):



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2557715 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



Strike 1!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557785 Pladizow
Pladizow's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:43 | 2557815 Manthong
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:48 | 2557844 Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

Perhaps this is how secessionist movements start.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2557910 dwdollar
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2557997 Fish Gone Bad
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. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:22 | 2558031 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really? No shit....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:55 | 2558770 macholatte
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 14:54 | 2559057 iinthesky
iinthesky's picture

Who were the dissenting justices?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:38 | 2558103 Waffen
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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:48 | 2558452 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

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

I'm in.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:19 | 2558312 azzhatter
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:20 | 2558598 EINSILVERGUY

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 .





Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:57 | 2558492 Grinder74
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:43 | 2558708 Clinteastwood
Clinteastwood's picture

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

Fri, 09/07/2012 - 19:32 | 2773510 SteinRobyn17
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!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2557800 battle axe
battle axe's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2557719 Rahm
Rahm's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2557798 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:45 | 2558139 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

If there is any Obama bitch slappin'...

It is Michelle bitch slappin' Bullshit Barry...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:28 | 2557722 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557782 Ms. Erable
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?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:08 | 2557939 boogiedown
boogiedown's picture

+87,000 LOL

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:21 | 2558332 azzhatter
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?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:41 | 2558434 Osmium
Osmium's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:59 | 2558503 Grinder74
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".

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557783 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

Federal power over state power.  You expected different? 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2557888 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

After 150+ years of federal usurpation? Not really.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:28 | 2557723 Payne
Payne's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2557757 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Is this a joke about the coming inevitable police state?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2557760 Flyingtrader
Flyingtrader's picture

Your papers please?


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:03 | 2558524 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:34 | 2557761 Flyingtrader
Flyingtrader's picture


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:34 | 2557767 otto skorzeny
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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:50 | 2558157 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2557730 the not so migh...
the not so mighty maximiza's picture

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

Sun, 09/16/2012 - 17:50 | 2801372 Nagelstudio
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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2557734 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture

Arizona is Mexico right?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:42 | 2557805 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Patience. Some of the signs are still in English.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:46 | 2557833 GeneMarchbanks
GeneMarchbanks's picture


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:56 | 2557843 Marginal Call
Marginal Call's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:43 | 2557814 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Excuse Gene, he is drunk and from Europe.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:03 | 2557905 Ms. Erable
Ms. Erable's picture

Sounds redundant when you put it like that.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:09 | 2557922 Ghordius
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:17 | 2557985 Marginal Call
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. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:38 | 2558104 CommunityStandard
CommunityStandard's picture

Housing market will tank another 25% anyway.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:59 | 2558199 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

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

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:08 | 2558255 Marginal Call
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. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:17 | 2557990 Spastica Rex
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:20 | 2558003 blunderdog
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.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:24 | 2558354 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Easy solution- we have 23 million unemployed americans. They either do the dirty work or starve, your choice. End the .gov cheese and these people will have to work

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:43 | 2559236 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nah. What's actually going to happen is most of the work done by illegals will just stop getting done.  Not to suggest that's a bad thing: more old folks should mow their own lawns, anyway.

NOBODY will pay enough to hire Americans to do most of those jobs currently performed by illegals.  That's the real problem, and that's why even AZ isn't at all serious about fixing things.

You fix the problem overnight by making employment of illegals a crime that carries criminal penalties. 

If a contractor gets caught with an illegal carpenter, or a governor gets caught with an illegal housekeeper, they spend 30 days in County.

The illegals would be gone within a few months.  But sadly, some rich folks might have to do some time, and that's really not an acceptable approach.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:36 | 2558409 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

This is a very complicated issue, so don't expect anything comprehensive here.

Once upon a time the US allowed Mexicans to come here legally as guest workers. Most were in agriculture. After the picking season they went home.

Over the years, that plan was dropped, the welfare state expanded and was allowed to include illegal aliens, and cultural diversity was elevated by political demagogues. In the 1950s, when I grew up, I was taught that the American experiment was in part about it being a vast melting pot where groups came, added the good parts of their culture to the overall American culture, discarded the bad parts, and ended up becoming Americans. Now, in what I see as an effort to divide and conquer (or at least rule) certain political groups have disparaged American culture and proclaimed the benefits of cultural identity politics. Thus were born certain resentments and the political manipulations that accompanied them.

Add to those factors the rather unique development of the United States of America. We started as individual colonies, became independent states in a confederation, and only reluctantly created a central government. There has always been a certain tension between what states can do and what the Federal government can do. More recently, it is a tension between the states and what the Federal government can force the states, and the people themselves, to do. The issue in Arizona, and many other places, is this: do the people, and the states, have the ability to protect and rule themselves in areas where the Federal government, having ultimate authority, has failed - inadvertently or on purpose - to exercise its delegated powers? Further, although not directly part of the legal issues in Arizona, is this question: Do states, and the people, have a right to rule themselves when the Federal government oversteps the limitations imposed by the Constitution?

Again - the issue is complicated. It is not simply a legal issue, nor is it merely a cultural issue. Books could be - and probably have been - written about this conundrum.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:10 | 2559121 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

     do the people, and the states, have the ability to protect and rule themselves in areas where the Federal government, having ultimate authority, has failed - inadvertently or on purpose - to exercise its delegated powers?

In principle, that'd be a "yes" with some reservations, but in practice, the Feds usually have the clout to shut down State legislation when they think it gets too uppity.  See: drinking age.

     Further, although not directly part of the legal issues in Arizona, is this question: Do states, and the people, have a right to rule themselves when the Federal government oversteps the limitations imposed by the Constitution?

We had a war awhile back about that very question.  The result (although never explicitly legally answered) from that war is an emphatic NO.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:22 | 2558342 Rahm
Rahm's picture

If I were in Europe, I'd stay drunk as well, to help numb the pain.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:25 | 2558358 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

I'm drunk and I'm in Chicago. You can get a good deal on a gun here

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:05 | 2557913 boogiedown
boogiedown's picture

"Arizona is Mexico right?"

Nope, it was stolen fair and square. They'll have to reconquista it from our cold, dead -- wait a minute, Arizona IS Mexico

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2558010 juangrande
juangrande's picture

it used to be...
before that it was Apache and others

of course the natives were not so full of themselves as to think they "owned" something that has/will be around eons longer than themselves...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:50 | 2558462 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

History is full of stories wherein groups march into lands occupied by others and conquer through force. The US is no different in that respect. Might makes right, as the cliche goes. Or, to recall a once-popular description, Manifest Destiny. The US simply expanded westward to the Pacific. It did not try (for the most part) to expand south into Mexico or north into Canada.

Your statement about "the natives" not being "so full of themselves" is generally false. They were just as imperfect as the American culture that conquered them. If they didn't think they "owned" the land why did they not simply move elsewhere when the Americans arrived? Perhaps they believed in group ownership rather than indivudual ownership, but that is, ultimately, an inconsequential difference. The whole concept of noble savages is a flawed one.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 15:18 | 2559148 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

    to expand south into Mexico

US-Mexican war--it was MOSTLY "West into Mexico" although a bit Southerly, too.  About half the Mexican territory at the time.

What do kids learn in schools these days?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557736 duo
duo's picture

CNN has said "major victory for Obama" at least a dozen times.  Did they get a different story?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:44 | 2557821 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Yes, they were reporting that Michelle will no longer use the dildo on him.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:26 | 2558370 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

and you know michelle has one too. normally for jarrett but sometimes for barry

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2557737 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

I dont get it your headline reads "slap in the face for obama" but the artcle quoted from CNN says "its a win for the fed and a loss for AZ"??????

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2557743 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

CNN's agenda is clear. They're not alone in having an agenda, but theirs is obvious enough.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2557755 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

CNN is too incompetant to have a functioning agenda.....


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:36 | 2557770 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Wolf Blitzer-"The Go-To News Jew"

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:51 | 2557850 i-dog
i-dog's picture

David Gergen was schooled at Bilderberg in how to report globalist propaganda ... twice....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2557788 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

Competence isn't required to execute an agenda of ignorance.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2557796 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yeah... that seems to be case over at FOX.... hell, the pundits get the Repubs talking point memos and even admitted as such....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:48 | 2557832 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

Sure, but what does that have to do with this story?


ETA - CNN's view could end up being valid here as the interpretations start rolling out.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:58 | 2558497 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Even if I bought the idea that Fox News is an adjunct of the Republican party - and I don't - at least there is ONLY Fox. When the Dems come out with talking points the same phrase is heard over and over again by various pundits on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC an various other news/propaganda outlets. This lemming-like, repetitious behavior has been documented so many times it is beyound dispute.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:38 | 2558679 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

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...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 14:19 | 2558896 Gene Parmesan
Gene Parmesan's picture

So the left leaning media has relatively ineffective "talking points," but the right leaning media would impress Goebbels? You need to take a step back and reassess. Maybe google Media Matters.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 14:51 | 2559051 Straw Dog
Straw Dog's picture

Well satd

For another point of view try Glenn Beck's network. You have to subscribe at $9.95 per month, but whether you like the man or not, he does  have his own independent network, beholden to nobody except his subscibers. Network soon to be 24 hours. Guests have inclded Jim Rogers and many other notables, has quoted zerohedge material several times. Well worth the investment. And no, I don't work for gbtv or any affiiated org.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:32 | 2557750 Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

The Court upheld Arizona's law allowing police to check for immigration status.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557780 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

ok i see now they struck down most of it but upheld the right for AZ police to search if reasonable suspicion of illegal status. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:44 | 2557822 Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

Seems the Court is more concerned with protecting Police Power than Immigration Laws.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2557738 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

What in the hell are they waiting for? Slap him again....then kick him while he is down.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:47 | 2557839 El Oregonian
El Oregonian's picture

In the nuts preferably... oh, thats right... he has no nuts...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:07 | 2558545 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Sure he does.  What do you think Reggie was sucking on all day?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:32 | 2557745 chubbar
chubbar's picture

Well, how about when the Federal Gov't refuses to enforce the fucking immigration laws? Round them up and deport the illegals already. They can go stand in line behind the folks interested in actually following our laws.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:01 | 2558517 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

I wish we could round up and deport - or at least incarcerate - Federal officials who fail to enforce immigration laws.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:32 | 2557747 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Conflicted headlines here???

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:32 | 2557748 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

The Supreme Court is not where you go in search of justice. That's like two kids fighting on the playground. Then they go seek a ruling from the one kid's Mom. That doesn't inspire a lot of hope for real justice, does it?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:32 | 2557751 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Imagine that, good fences do make good neigbors.  Enforce the fucking law, prosecute the god damn fraud at all levels.  Until the rule of laws and contracts is restore, nothing will be fixed and possession will remain the law.  Moral hazard is a bitch and paper promises don't mean shit.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557778 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I hear ya... but isn't the problem that there is nobody left who is competant enough to enforce the law? Toss in the fact that most of the people you want to prosecute are effectively beyond the reach of society.... A captured regulatory process is a bitch and if history is any guide, all but irreversible....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:41 | 2557803 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Exactly why possession is quickly becoming the law.  The regulatory process is irrelevant and all economies are really local, always have been.  Only a great reset fixes anything at this point.  Precisely why like-minded, similarly positioned, and potentially well-armed neighbors will be so important.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:53 | 2557861 Chump
Chump's picture

A great reset fixes nothing unless, like you said, prosecuting the fraud happens first.  Otherwise the banksters and their political bitches get to ride off into the sunset with their ill-gotten gains.  Well, those who had the forethought to convert them into something other than paper that is.  Since prosecution won't happen, a great reset simply ensures our return to feudalism after a few years of barbarism.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:05 | 2557916 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep.... Feudalism is in our future....

And I will be bet dollars to doughnuts that more that a few people here will be wishing for a social democracy once they get a taste of the United Feudal Land Holdings of America and what that means for anyone not in the 0.1%....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:29 | 2558065 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

The new feudal order will be wrapped in pretty marketing and provide never ending Big Macs for the peasantry. So - why worry?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:43 | 2558134 Chump
Chump's picture

But will there be bacon?  If not, all bets are off on my end.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:54 | 2558176 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Bacon will be for the gentry. Sorry.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 13:12 | 2558563 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Not if Lord Mayor Bloomberg or Queen Michelle (or Queen Barack?) are your overlords. Big Macs will be strictly verboten, replaced by garden-grown GMO veggies. Soda will be replaced by water - complete with lithium and flouride.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:12 | 2557946 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Look at the bright side, even babrbarians recognize and insure that there will be consequences  for your actions and bad behavior.  fuck it, sounds good to me.  At least with a reset, compensation finds its way back to productive labor and not paper-pushing bullshit.  Fucking bring it.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2557991 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The problem is when a group of people have everything, there is little desire to have a function productive economy... Think of Rome post the Diocletian reforms...

Edit: Think of it this way, why would anyone want a system that could enable someone to rise and challenge their hegemony?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:30 | 2558071 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

"Competition" is for the suckers.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:41 | 2558123 Chump
Chump's picture

Not disagreeing with you, just saying that it sucks that even a complete economic reset works in the favor of TPTB.  And we will surely be killing each other instead of sticking banksters' and politicos' heads on pikes.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 12:08 | 2558256 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

TPTB do not have complete control, I am considerably more optimistic.  If they did have complete control, you would be hearing nothing but good news.  I (and many others) have been keeping track of precisely who "TPTB" are.  Unless they leave the planet, there is no where they can hide.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2557756 NumNutt
NumNutt's picture

What part of this slaps Obama in the face?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2557790 otto skorzeny
otto skorzeny's picture

Dems-cheap votes/Repubs-cheap labor-WIN-WIN! no-wait?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:46 | 2557830 DosZap
DosZap's picture

What part of this slaps Obama in the face?

The part where someone can be checked for I D to show they are legal US citizens when they violated traffic laws.

The Scrotum wanted the PoPo's to not have the right to ask someone pulled over if they were here legally .

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2557930 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey, if the cops can strip search you with impunity (as the SCOTUS has recently ruled), why shouldn't they be able to check your ID?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:09 | 2557937 ATM
ATM's picture

"Mr. Obama, your papers please."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:34 | 2557764 slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

drDurden, i presume...? 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:36 | 2557772 LoneStarHog
LoneStarHog's picture

Obozo doesn't give a tinker's damn about what the "outdated" Supreme Court rules.

Obozo majored in Constitutional Law for ONE reason and it is the first rule of war:  Know Thy Enemy!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557779 PhotonJohn
PhotonJohn's picture

Why do I need an ID to go out in public?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2557794 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Why do I need an ID to go out in public?

To prove you are an actual LEGAL citizen.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:41 | 2557804 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

DosZap, spoken like a true sheep.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:49 | 2557846 DosZap
DosZap's picture

DosZap, spoken like a true sheep.

Dude I assure you I am not a fkin sheep.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:07 | 2557929 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're a good subject, though.  Whatever it takes to cooperate with the gummit, right?  Wouldn't it be BETTER if legal AZ residents had to get RFIDs implanted if they want to walk around in public?

You know.  To prove they're legal.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:45 | 2557820 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Fuck the ID, show me your tax bill.  I certainly wish mine was smaller.  Everyone wants a great society, no one wants to work for it.  Stupid mother fuckers, nothing  is free and no one is willing to work for paper promises anymore.  At least no one I know.  Rock, meet hard place.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2557799 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

you dont need ID to go out in public but if you are suspected of a specific crime the police have a right to ask you for an ID. And last time i checked its still supossed to be illegal to be here illegally no matter what your stance is on any of the humanitarian points of the issue.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:45 | 2557831 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

Spoken like a good citizen who won the vagina lottery and born on the "right" side of the fence

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:51 | 2557851 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Spoken like a good citizen who won the vagina lottery and born on the "right" side of the fence

So your for ILLEGAL immigration , wow.No matter Sherriff Joe is still arresting them.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2557882 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

I'm for liberty.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:03 | 2557902 moondog
moondog's picture

I'm for the rule of law.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:11 | 2557953 Clint Liquor
Clint Liquor's picture

Without the rule of law, Liberty is non-existent.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 18:32 | 2559760 moondog
moondog's picture

So two anarchists voted me down? Or are you criminals?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2558049 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

"I'm for liberty"


If you can quote Rothbard then I might buy your claims of Liberty. If on the other hand you are an anarchist you are simply laying down deception to bring about socialist/communist rule, which is no different than the fascist/national socialist rule of our current oligarchy.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:02 | 2557897 moondog
moondog's picture

Based on your chosen screenname, your response is expected. All nations have the right to protect their sovereign borders. Just be happy you weren't born south of Mexico.

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

-- Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:14 | 2557971 ATM
ATM's picture

"Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals."

How the hell do they do that? Last time I drove into Mexico they just wave at you as you motor by at 40mph. No papers, no entry point, just drive right in like your going to Wisconsin. 

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2558048 moondog
moondog's picture

The statement refers to visas.

There are three basic migratory visas for foreigners who wish to stay in Mexico. This first is a tourist visa called a FMT. For those looking to live in Mexico permanently or temporarily, There are the FM3 and the FM2. The FM3 is for those who wish to live in Mexico, but do not qualify as a long-term immigrant and are classed as no inmigrante visitante (visitor non-immigrant). There are various types of FM3 for professionals working in the country, exchange students and those living in Mexico but not working, such as retirees. The FM2 is for those classed as inmigrante rentista (longer term immigrant) and is similar to a United States Permanent Resident Card. For those carrying either of these visas, economic activities are strictly limited to those authorized by the document.[8]

The statement that is salient is that visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2557912 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

Under your logic, if I (as a legal American) chose to wade the Rio Grande and enter Mexico and get a job that a Mexican should hold and incur medical expenses that Mexico has to pay for and got an education that Mexico has to pay for, that's all okay, right?  Because I didn't hit the Mexican Vagina Lottery and it isn't fair to turn me away because of that, right?


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:10 | 2557947 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

so you believe we should just not have borders or rules of international migration? Wow

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:44 | 2558137 headless blogger
headless blogger's picture

Maybe you work for the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 14:11 | 2558857 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Spoken like a good citizen who won the vagina lottery and born on the "right" side of the door to the house/building they are safely residing in.  See?  Works both ways.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:37 | 2557784 DosZap
DosZap's picture

I think the states should enforce the Constutional laws of the land, and let the Feds try and stop them.When the Feds do not follow the laws,or enforce, and make their own up, then its time for the states to do their jobs, and what is in their interests.


Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:42 | 2557807 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Fricken Kennedy.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:44 | 2557819 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

"Hello Good Citizens, this is your government. Please show me your papers in order to enjoy the liberty we provide".

The fences are closing in and you sheep still think its about "immigration"

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:46 | 2557837 exodus11
exodus11's picture

Who cares what the supreme court says. They are just as useless as whatever criminal faction is in power. Just ignore them.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:47 | 2557841 insanelysane
insanelysane's picture

Can I stop paying state taxes since state government has no power?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:54 | 2557866 johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

break one of their laws and see how little power the state still has

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:19 | 2557993 Winston of Oceania
Winston of Oceania's picture

Arizona should stop all public benefits going to illegals or at least deduct the cost from tax roles going to Washington. After all they have no right interfering in federal matters...

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:53 | 2557853 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

But the justices said the police have limited authority. They must check with federal immigration agents before deciding to hold the suspects.

The justices also blocked parts of the Arizona’s SB 1070 that would have made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to fail to carry documents or to seek work.

The court’s decision appears to give states such as Arizona a quite limited role in enforcing the laws against illegal immigrants. Their police can notify federal agents if they have a suspect in custody, but they cannot keep them in a county jail on state charges.

You have a curious definition of getting slapped, TD. I'd call it a draw. Arizona gets all the expense of the stops but none of the Arpaio "pink underwear" that Arizona fascists love so much.

Yet another instance of "conservatives" going buns up for the flavor of "big government" they like the most. Hypocrites, to a man.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:40 | 2558100 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My take as well.... the ruling is a wash and the only winners are the pundits who get to spin things as they see fit....

And now a moment of silence for "Lonesome George", the last Pinta Island Tortoise that passed away yesterday....

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:52 | 2557854 Zymurguy
Zymurguy's picture

I see this as a big win for constitutional conservatives.

State/County/Municipal law enforcement officers can do their jobs and have the backing of the federal govt. for their efforts to determine the immigrant status of anyone they have cause to believe is here illegally.  This means these officers and their directives are in sync with federal protocols and there is a supreme court ruling supporting it.

It also has distinctly separated the responsibilities of which level of government is responsible for the arrest and possibly incarciration/deportation of those here illegally.  Arizona now has the green light to find those who are here illegally and turn them over to federal authorities.  The federal govt. has the responsibility to deal with them and Arizona now has grounds to pursue restitution of the federal government should they NOT uphold their end of this chain of responsibility.

Sometimes when things are vague it allows you to get away with shedding your duties.  Once those are explicitly defined, you can no longer hide behind the ambiguity.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:53 | 2557858 Caviar Emptor
Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:55 | 2557872 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Yeah, I'm sure the market will be queueing up for that offal.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:54 | 2557865 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

This is interesting.... CNBC says we are slaves to central bankers..I don't know what the hell it's doing on CNBC

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:59 | 2557891 surf0766
surf0766's picture

They miss the occupy movement?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:55 | 2557870 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Dude you do not have to have any paperwork on you when you go out in public.

Your right to do so anytime.

Unless your driving..................

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 14:13 | 2558870 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

your <> you're

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2557889 surf0766
surf0766's picture

Wait until the stats come out on how many stopped are suspicious to their immigration status and turn out to be illegal.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:02 | 2557901 JohnKozac
JohnKozac's picture

Devastating news for union workers who charge $60 an hour trying to compete in a market where folks will work for $12 an hour.

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:58 | 2558195 ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

$60.00 an hour for what?

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2557909 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Hey, that's pretty cool.  So states can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with Federal law-enforcement.

To wit: SPECIFICALLY STATED that there is no concern at all with the putative "rights" of the "citizens" or residents based solely on the fact that ambiguous legislation MAY result in violations of Constitutional protections.

Hah!  Way to go, gang!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:09 | 2557943 i love cholas
i love cholas's picture

"Hello Good Citizens, this is your Government. All Zerohedge readers & commentors are suspected of a crime. Please provide the proper paper work so you can return to the liberty we provide. Have a Good Day Good Citizens."

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:11 | 2557950 MFL8240
MFL8240's picture

This is a pathetic ruling.  Makes little to no sense! Stop the illegals ask if they are illegal (maybe take to Denny’s for breakfast) then cut them loose to get stopped again.  Unreal!

Mon, 06/25/2012 - 11:15 | 2557978 CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

That was my thinking, too.  Can someone tell me what the hell is the point of allowing Arizona to identify illegal aliens if the feds aren't going to do anything about it once those illegal aliens are identified?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!