Emily Bazelon, senior editor at Slate previews the next session of the Supreme Court, which will include Arizona immigration law, Obama's health reform law, and redistricting in Texas.
Chief Justice Roberts’s assertion is untrue, at least insofar as it implies federal supremacy over the question of immigration. As I’ve previously contended, there is nothing in the Constitution that vests the federal government with the power to police illegal immigration within the territory of a state. To the contrary, the Constitution empowers Congress merely “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” i.e., to prescribe the qualifications for American citizenship. It says nothing about how those standards are to be enforced. In adopting the Constitution, the states did not delegate to the national government their inherent authority to police their territory, to defend their citizens, and to detain persons who have no lawful right to be on their soil.
Related to Newt Gingrich's stance - didn't Michelle Bachman also say that a 5-4 decision needn't be respected?
Re the re-districting case:I have great respect for Justice Breyer. However, it's hard to believe that the Court is above politics. In our current Roberts Court, is there any real doubt that there will be a decision which will benefit Conservatives who are running for office?
Andrew C. McCarthy May 28, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Winning the Case, Losing the Principle Arizona won, but the sovereignty of states suffered a setback.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the most politicized Justice Department in American history to drop its imperious lawsuit against the people of Arizona — those impertinent subjects who dare to demand enforcement of the immigration laws Pres. Barack Obama deems null and void.
It is true that this week, in upholding Arizona’s sanctions against employers who hire illegal aliens, the Supreme Court implicitly undermined the preemption-by-executive-fiat theory underlying the administration’s suit. By a 5–3 majority (with Justice Elena Kagan, Obama’s former solicitor general, having recused herself), the Court held that a state is not barred from enacting laws that are consistent with federal statutes and bolster congressional purposes. That is to say, the touchstone of preemption remains law, which is what Congress prescribes, not policy, which is a president’s political calculation about what laws to enforce or not enforce.
Nobody cares in the slightest that the Supreme Court is corporate controlled. Nobody gives the slightest damn. THEY CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED LEGITIMATE.
Brian,Regarding health care bill case, I often wonder what is the difference (in terms of constitutionality) between requiring automobile insurance when registering a car, and requiring health insurance??
Does your guest know if any SC Justice has everresigned to protest a majority ruling? Thanks
Since their totally disgraceful, completely Orwellian and obviously bought-off Citizens United decision, I don't have the slightest use for the US Supreme Court and consider them to be one of the festering garbage pits of corruption that needs to be swept out of the US Government toute suite. Absolutely disgusting.
About the AZ immigration law. No question that Federal trumps state on immigration, but it's not clear to me why state is pre-empted when it criminalizes hiring illegals. That provision seems to advance the Federal interest, not clash with it.
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.