The Supreme Court Goes Big

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

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. 


Emily Bazelon

Comments [9]

gary from queens

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.



Dec. 14 2011 11:45 AM
Lois from West Milford

Related to Newt Gingrich's stance - didn't Michelle Bachman also say that a 5-4 decision needn't be respected?

Dec. 14 2011 11:20 AM

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?

Dec. 14 2011 11:18 AM
gary from queens

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.


Dec. 14 2011 11:17 AM
Nick from Nick

Nobody cares in the slightest that the Supreme Court is corporate controlled. Nobody gives the slightest damn. THEY CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED LEGITIMATE.

Dec. 14 2011 11:14 AM

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??

Dec. 14 2011 11:13 AM

Does your guest know if any SC Justice has ever
resigned to protest a majority ruling? Thanks

Dec. 14 2011 11:06 AM
Nick from UWS

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.

Dec. 14 2011 11:03 AM
John P MacKenzie from Long Island City

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.

Dec. 14 2011 10:04 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.