Obama is a “constitutional scholar,” the mainstream media tell us. He’s a genius, they tell us.
What they don’t tell us is that he’s an abject moron who needs his teleprompter to avoid revealing that he is a blathering idiot. And what they don’t tell us is that Obama is literally on the record referring to the Constitution and the founding fathers who created the world’s oldest democracy as “fundamentally flawed” and tainted with an “enormous blind spot.”
Last summer, Democrats erupted in unholy (mind you, everything Democrats do is unholy) outrage over the Arizona law. It wss racist, Democrats screamed. It was evil. It was an abuse of the Constitution and everything America stands for. It was worse than anything the Nazis did.
It didn’t matter if Obama and his attorney general Eric Holder never bothered to read the ten page law (Democrats don’t feel the need to bother trifling with any law that is under two thousand pages, donthaknow). Ignorance is bliss with demonic demagogues like these two. They didn’t have to actually bother to read the law; they KNEW it was unconstitutional. And so they were entirely in the right to throw the full weight of the federal government against a state of the union. They were entirely right to literally go to the international bodies and decry the actions of a state of the union. They were entirely right to invite the president of Mexico to demonize a state of the union before the United States Congress while Democrats gave him a standing ovation.
Oops. It’s starting to look like somebody owes somebody a rather giant apology:
December 8, 2010
High Court Appears Poised to Uphold Arizona Immigration Law
By Ashby Jones
Heading into Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court arguments concerning the legality of an Arizona anti-immigration law, much of the story surrounded the strange bedfellows created by the case.
As WSJ Supreme Court correspondent Jess Bravin wrote before the hearing, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had formed an “unusual alliance” with liberal groups hoping to strike down the law, which penalizes employers who hire illegal immigrants.
But heading out of the argument, the story has shifted to the case’s probable outcome: that the law would survive the constitutional challenge. According to Bravin, several justices on Wednesday rejected claims that the state exceeded the limited powers Congress left it to enforce immigration policies. Click here for Bravin’s story; here for commentary from Scotusblog’s Lyle Denniston.
For now, a little backstory, courtesy of Bravin’s story: The Legal Arizona Workers Act requires local prosecutors to investigate complaints that unauthorized aliens are working in their communities and, unless the allegations are “false and frivolous,” to file suit in state court to suspend the employer’s business licenses.
Those challenging the law say the Arizona measure violates the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, whereby federal regulations supersede any “state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws).”
But that argument got little traction. “You read the definition of ‘license’ in the Administrative Procedure Act and this is awfully close,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress provided states additional “wiggle room” by writing “not just ‘licensing laws,’ but ‘licensing and similar laws.”‘
Furthermore, Justice Antonin Scalia said that whatever Congress had in mind when adopting the 1986 law, current conditions along the border could justify the harsh sanctions Arizona adopted in 2007. Border states are in “serious trouble financially and for other reasons because of unrestrained immigration,” he said, and wouldn’t “have to resort to such massive measures” if federal immigration law “had been vigorously enforced.”
Another hurdle for the law’s challengers: Justice Elena Kagan is sitting out on the case: she was involved at earlier stages when serving in the Obama administration. A 4-4 split would leave Arizona’s employer sanctions intact — and would do so without creating a national precedent clarifying the limits of state authority to punish the hiring of illegal aliens.
Not that liberals give a flying frank about the Constitution, or due process, or admitting that they were massively wrong, or about anything else that would qualify them as decent human beings, but… what’s going to happen if – after all the godawful racist demagoguery and demonization at the hands of the Obama administration, the Democrat Party and the institutional allies of Democrats – we find that the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Arizona was right and Democrats were wrong???
A ruling that the Arizona law would be constitutional was actually very real when the left was coming unglued over it.
The last time the Supreme Court ruled in a way Obama didn’t like, he didn’t have the emotional maturity or the dimmest understanding for basic American principles to respect the separation of powers. You know, the division of government into the executive, legislative and judicial branches? And so Obama – like a petulant little boy – proceeded to publicly rebuke the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States after the latter body politely accepted the invitation to hear Obama’s State of the Union address.
It’s just a guess on my part, but my bet is that – if in fact the Supreme Court actually does give Obama a smackdown over his idiotic attack of the state of Arizona – Obama and the Democrat Party will again utterly refuse to demonstrate anything other but the complete lack of class that they have always demonstrated.