First ObamaCare and now Arizona law S.B. 1070.
The otherwise bizarre way Obama demonized the Supreme Court AFTER that court had taken it’s vote strongly suggests that Obama had been tipped off as to the outcome – which even most liberals predicted would go against Obama following the disastrous showing by the Obama administration’s attempt to defend its fascist takeover of the health care system - is itself a tipoff as to how the SCOTUS will rule. Because why would Obama demonize and try to delegitimize the Supreme Court if it is going to rule in his favor???
Obama’s attack against the Supreme Court of the United States follows his attack against the United States Congress. And when a president attacks and demonizes the two separate branches that are co-equal with him according to the United States Constitution, that president is a fascist.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals forcibly rubbed Obama’s nose in his own fecal matter. And very deservedly so.
Obama has been slapped down before for his fascist Constitution-defying power-grabs. And we’d better hope he gets slapped down again for his fascist takeovers. Because what he’s dong is frightening to anyone who loves liberty.
Now we’re seeing Obama – the “constitutional scholar – on the verge of getting slapped hard in the face yet again because of his inability to understand that HE IS NOT A DICTATOR.
Supreme Court takes up Arizona immigration law
By MARK SHERMAN | Associated Press – 4/25/12
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.
It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court’s term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states’ role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government’s control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to “engage effectively in mass incarceration” of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli’s characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.
Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted Verilli to say, “It is not an effort to preempt federal law, it is an effort to enforce the law.” Roberts added that even if Arizona detains an undocumented immigrant “It’s still [the federal government’s] decision” who to deport.
Not surprisingly, Justice Scalia sided almost entirely with Arizona and ventured to an extreme where not even the state of Arizona seemed uninterested in spending much time. Scalia argued in court that the states not only have the right to enforce federal immigration law but also have the right to wholly close their borders to undocumented immigrants.
Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was the most sympathetic to the government’s claims, seemed unconvinced. “I’m terribly confused by your answer,” she said, as Verrilli attempted to explain why it’s okay for states and the federal government to cooperate when the federal government takes the initiative but not when a state moves to mandate their cops to do so.
“Putting aside the argument that systemic cooperation is wrong,” adding, “you can see it’s not selling well,” Sotomayor asked Verilli to explain “what’s left?”
Verrilli did not have a great deal to offer.
Obama has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the United States Congress. He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the Supreme Court. He has stuck his thumb in the eyes of the states. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t give one flying damn about the Constitution.
I’ve written about the Arizona law a number of times before (from newest to oldest):
Based on the oral arguments, it looks like I was right and the “Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief” was überfascist wrong.