Earlier today, one of our resident lawyers predicted a 9-0 decision against the Arizona anti-immigration law. Looks like it’s 7-2 at best….
Samuel Alito rolled his eyes to the ceiling and shook his head in objection when two liberal justices spoke.
[….]Scalia derisively likened the Obama administration’s position to saying that it would prosecute only “professional bank robbers” and would object when a state decides to prosecute an “amateur bank robber.”
wenchacha
Was Clarence Thomas sitting this one out? Sleeping on the bench?
Baud
To be fair to Scalia and Alito, the Obama administration opposes the Arizona law.
ETA: By the way, I read somewhere that Kagan is recused, so only 8 votes.
MikeJ
Make that 6-3
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/223659-justices-seem-favorable-to-arizona-immigration-law
SiubhanDuinne
The more I know about Scalito, the more I despise Scalito.
cathyx
What happens with a 4-4 tie?
Baud
@cathyx: Affirmed by an equally divided court. Good result.
rikyrah
I want them to uphold the Papers, Please law.
fuck it.
mclaren
If you waste your time listening to anything burnspbesq says, you’re too foolish to bother with. Bunspbesq’s “legal knowledge” as demonstrated on this forum subsists somewhere below the level of an illiterate Life Without Parole convict sounding out the words as he reads the books in the prison law library.
rikyrah
@cathyx:
4-4 tie means the law is struck down
mclaren
@SiubhanDuinne:
There, fixed that for ya. (Disturbingly, it works almost as well with Democrats.)
Scotty
@cathyx: They go to sudden death overtime.
Little Boots
they’re political operatives at this point. and hispanics are starting to count, despite the voter suppresion.
dr. bloor
What a fucking drama queen. Sotomayor should kick his ass in the cloakroom every time he pulls that shit.
SCOTUSblog is not nearly as confident that Arizona isn’t going to get its way on this, btw.
Fwiffo
I am shocked that anyone predicted anything other than 4-4 (or upheld 5-4 if they predicted before Kagan was removed).
Spaghetti Lee
Scalia’s such a nasty old turd. He’s not even pretending to be impartial anymore. He’s just waving his dick in everyone’s face, letting us know how beholden he is to right wing extremists and how there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Not that any of the court’s conservatives are different, but Scalia’s just awful.
Evolving Deep Southerner
@wenchacha: Uncle Clarence Thomas (the justice, not the erstwhile troll who used to post here) hasn’t said a word during oral arguments in a good double handful of years now.
And Alito’s got a body language problem, doesn’t her? First the SOTU thing from a year or two ago, and now this. Bet he sucks at [that card game that is probably the thing that’s fucking up my attempt to post this] almost as bad as he fucking sucks as a jurist.
Brachiator
@Baud:
Yep. I think this is because Kagan was working for the government when the Arizona law was drafted.
MikeJ
@cathyx:
England will lose the shootout.
ETA: Sorry Scotty @11, I see you got there with the same gist sooner.
Little Boots
I prolly shouldn’t say this, but scalia …
yeah, prolly shouldn’t say this.
Evolving Deep Southerner
I’ve tried to post twice on this fucking thread and for whatever reason it won’t let me. Fuck you, WordPress.
cathyx
@Scotty: Maybe like the Hunger Games? I would watch that.
Little Boots
@Evolving Deep Southerner:
I hate wordpress.
but you’re here now.
just so you know.
Evolving Deep Southerner
@dr. bloor: That fucker does have a body language problem, doesn’t he? First that silent-mouthing shit at the last (or before-last) State of the Union speech when Obama called them out on Citizens United, and now this. I’ll bet that wormy-looking cocksucker is almost as bad as [a card game involving “tells” that may be the thing fucking up my posting ability] as he is at being a jurist.
swordofdoom
@Little Boots: Is it OK for the rest of us to think what you were going to say?
Baud
@Little Boots: Why can’t WordPress ever do that to our resident GOP troll?
Raven
@Evolving Deep Southerner: sup dawg
jncc
Wait, what? Even Sotomayor was skeptical of one of SGs arguments.
Anyone who thought this would be 9-0 against is an idiot, not least because Kagan recused herself, leaving only 8.
My bold (and useless prediction) – it will be 6-2 upholding the “papers please” provision and a mess of concurrences and pluralities re other provisions, striking down some, upholding others.
Elmo
If Arizona has the right to police its borders, can it legislate that nobody without a job is allowed to enter?
Alternatively can it legislate that only US citizens may enter?
If it can’t do that, then it loses this case.
Little Boots
@swordofdoom:
it is granted.
Steeplejack
@Baud:
Can someone tell me why Kagan recused herself? I haven’t seen anything about it.
Baud
@Steeplejack: I think it is because she worked on the case when she was Solicitor General.
Little Boots
doug had a good post.
just saying.
El Cid
Antonin Scalia may be a right wing reactionary, but, you see, he has a keen and philosophical legal mind, of impressive depth and whatever.
MikeJ
In case anybody missed the 9-0 claims:
https://balloon-juice.com/2012/04/22/open-thread-1296/#comment-3201673
https://balloon-juice.com/2012/04/24/all-the-federales-say/#comment-3205963
Punchy
Everything Ive read today says not only wont it be 4-4, Zona wins this 5-3 on at least 2 of the provisions, maybe 3. Obama Admin loses this badly.
Hill Dweller
That dick also mouthed “not true” when the President rightfully said Citizens United would be a disaster.
Alito despises Obama because he wanted to filibuster his nomination the SC, and said this on the Senate floor:
I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He’s an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there’s no indication he’s not a man of great character.
But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.
If there is a case involving an employer and an employee and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, he’ll rule in favor of the employer. If there’s a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he’ll rule in favor of the state. He’s rejected countless claims of employer discrimination, even refusing to give some plaintiffs a hearing for their case. He’s refused to hold corporations accountable numerous times for dumping toxic chemicals into water supplies, even against the decisions of the EPA. He’s overturned a jury verdict that found a company liable for being a monopoly when it had over 90% of the market share at the time.
It’s not just his decisions in these individual cases that give me pause – it’s that decisions like these are the rule for Samuel Alito, not the exception.
Steeplejack
@Baud:
Ah. Thanks.
Little Boots
always listen to el cid.
this is my motto.
unless he’s being sarcastic. which is hard to tell.
ignore el cid, sometimes. this is my new, sometimes, motto.
dr. bloor
@Hill Dweller:
I’m pretty sure everything you wrote before and after this statement refutes it. Unless your working definition of “character” doesn’t involve elements of integrity, maturity and self-control.
Just Some Fuckhead
How do we know this isn’t just the Italian-American justices flexing for the chickies, Sotomayer and Ginsburg?
Little Boots
oh, great, another dying thread.
I blame Doug.
never me.
MikeJ
@wenchacha:
I believe the last time Thomas spoke from the bench was about 2006.
Face
@MikeJ: Will Burnsie or eemom show up to defend these increasingly foolish looking predictions? I predict they wont.
cathyx
@Just Some Fuckhead: lol. You mean the Italian Stallions?
General Stuck
OT
watching the Reds and Giants play and I must say the San Fran boys of summer are looking the part for the hippie haven that city is. About all of them have long full beards that could put ZZ Top to shame. Dave ain’t here man/
Little Boots
still alive. wow.
Just Some Fuckhead
@cathyx: You know how Italians are.
The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik
Sigh….so basically, the wingnuts win again, forever and anon, because fuck you hippie, that’s why.
Wonderful. And Canada’s not even an option anymore because they’ve imported Neocon crazy there too.
Little Boots
@efgoldman:
I’ve been to Haight-Asbery, where the hell is everyone?
JWL
Todays U.S. Supreme Court is as corrupt as todays Congress of the United States. That’s what happens when two-party systems implode.
Little Boots
@efgoldman:
knew it.
sort of.
General Stuck
@efgoldman:
That makes me wonder if medicare pays for hot tubs. If I’m gonna get old, I want me a hot tub.
Hill Dweller
@dr. bloor: I was quoting Obama’s statement from the Senate floor(screwed up the block quoting). The cursory statement about Alito’s character is the equivalent of “with all due respect…”.
Obama hammered him in that statement.
joes527
@The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik: There seems to be something about countries where English is spoken that leads to insanity.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Hill Dweller:
And once again, Obama was right. Alito has gone on and done exactly what Obama feared that he would though it’s not because he’s pissed at Obama, it’s because that’s who he is.
Exactly like Obama warned us.
I think the Arizona legislature should pass a bill that orders their cops to all dress in black. Maybe toss some lightning bolts on the lapels for a little dash? Maybe make them practice goosestepping to give them that smart, snappy look in parades.
Killjoy
With the Roberts court, a law degree handicaps predicting Supreme Court decisions. They learn in school about things like stare decisis. The conservative justices operate under the new legal principle, DWTFTW.
Tom Q
Okay, I’m not underestimating the evil of 4-5 of our Court members…and I’m certainly not taking up the banner of the burnsesq…but…
Shouldn’t we wait till there are actual rulings before we do the post mortem? Alot of lawyers say the jabber in court can have no bearing on the outcome of cases — that judges who seemed to be mocking them ended up ruling in their favor.
I can’t remember a time when people made so many assumptions about case outcomes based purely on impressions of oral arguments. It’s another sign of the can’t-wait-for-results culture.
waratah
@Just Some Fuckhead: What performances we would have if they allowed cameras!
Punchy
@Tom Q: Normally, waiting is best. But Scalia has been so demonstrably and wantonly antagonistic to the SG and his arguments lately that waiting is not necessary to know that for most of these judges, their rulings are pre-cooked and probably written months ago.
dedc79
The Bush economy will rebound eventually (hopefully soon) but we’ll be living with his Supreme Court legacy for decades
SiubhanDuinne
@mclaren:
That works, thanks.
TheMightyTrowel
@The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik: There’s always australia. The sun is shining here.
fasteddie9318
Assuming they allow the Arizona law to stand and strike down the PPACA, can someone with money to burn, just for shits and giggles, file a lawsuit that seeks the dissolution of the United States and see if the SC will eventually take it? I ask because, for one thing, I know you’d have at least 3 votes in favor of dissolution as long as Obama made it clear he opposed dissolution, and, for another thing, if there’s a real chance of breaking this country up so I don’t have to fucking live with or around wingnuts anymore, I’m not finding myself very opposed to that idea.
fasteddie9318
@Tom Q:
Maybe, or maybe it’s a sign that the court has now been stacked with purely political operatives who have no interest in consistency or legal justification if it gets in the way of pushing their fairly naked partisan agenda.
piratedan
@MikeJ: in his defense, it takes Dick Cheney a lot more effort than it used to to operate him as a ventriloquists dummy
burnspbesq
@mclaren:
Riiight. Remind me again, what law review did you edit?
Xenos
@MikeJ: @Face:
Re: 9-0 predictions
You have to throw my name in there with Burns and Eemom, even though I usually disagree with them about how craven and dishonest the conservatives on the court can be.
The abortion rulings, the Bush v. Gore decision, the unhinged Kelo dissents, even the possible decision to reverse 70 years’ worth of commerce clause jurisprudence in order to defeat the ACA – these things all involve the court reversing prior decisions. The court clearly has the power to make decisions like this.
As for this case, the court does not really have the power, due to it being constrained by really quite clear language in the Constitution. Ruling for Arizona would be like allowing a state insolvency proceeding to preempt federal bankruptcy law, like ruling the federal government does not have the right to collect tariffs but that states do, like ruling that states can enact treaties with foreign nations.
Deciding for Arizona will not throw a few decades of case law out, it will knock out the foundation of 150 years’ of case law about immigration and the entire history of jurisprudence regarding federalism.
Any huffing, puffing and eye-rolling by Alito and Scalia is bullshit – just cooling off the foxnews marks.
calliope jane
I was in such a good mood with the Colbert speech. Sigh.
And I’m really late to this party, but, if I remember correctly, this is only a small subset of all the cases involved in this bill. Subsets of the case are going up the chain so I don’t think, even if the SC rules in favor of AZ (which, blech), it’s not ruling in favor of the entire thing.
SCOTUSblog was interesting (and a little depressing) on the subject. This part, though, from AZ’s atty Paul Clement (so glad the state’s paying for this):
“Just assume that Arizona police won’t abuse this power to detain people.” AWESOME.
Cacti
@Xenos:
.
Not only that, but they’ll be throwing the door open for 50 different sets of immigration policy, precisely the reason this power was explictly to the national government.
Doing that would mean up to 50 different state laws will be winding their way through the federal court system in the coming decades, making lots of work for “their honors”.
Antonin Scalia doesn’t strike me as fellow who enjoys extra work.
burnspbesq
@Face:
Wrong. I’m here. And I haven’t changed my mind, for the reason that Lyle Denniston alludes to but doesn’t fully explain in his article on SCOTUSBlog:
” If the Court accepts the word of Arizona’s lawyer that the state is seeking only very limited authority, the state has a real chance to begin enforcing key parts of its controversial law — S.B. 1070 — at least until further legal tests unfold in lower courts.”
The key thing that you are failing to remember is the procedural posture in which the case reached the Supreme Court. There has been no merits determination by the lower courts. The District Court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the law, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling.
There was a lot of grandstanding by the justices today, but when they get back in their respective chambers and their clerks (who have taken Civ Pro a lot more recently than the justices) remind them of what the standard for granting a preliminary injunction is, this case will come out the way it should.
Suffern ACE
@Cacti: Really? What does it matter to them?
burnspbesq
Whether the preliminary injunction stays in effect or is dissolved, the case on the merits is going to proceed, and the discovery is going to be epic. DOJ should put Governor Brewer’s deposition on pay-per-view; they’ll make a fucking fortune.
fasteddie9318
@Cacti:
Scalia is 76. It won’t be his work, and he doesn’t give a fuck.
mclaren
@Elmo:
They did during the Great Depression. Most states posted armed state police at the borders and put up huge billboards reading HOMELESS MEN, KEEP GOING — WE CAN’T FEED OUR OWN.
Coming soon to a state near you…
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Little Boots:
It’s Haight-ASHBURY.
Mark S.
Why did they even take this stupid case? Why don’t they just send it back down to the District Court and get a decision on the merits? Or is federal injunction law so unsettled that they felt the need to render a decision on this?
The prophet Nostradumbass
@burnspbesq: I believe it was the “Paris Law Review”, which is a a sister publication of the “Paris Business Review”.
BGinCHI
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Live from Hate Asbury Park….
The prophet Nostradumbass
@BGinCHI: Bruce Hornsby and the Range?
Evolving Deep Southerner
@The prophet Nostradumbass: Just for fun he says “Get a job!”
That’s just the way it is.
Some things will never change.
BGinCHI
Headline:
Fat Italian-American Bigoted Government Worker Claims People Who Do All the Jobs No One Else Wants Are Stealing
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Evolving Deep Southerner: Heh, good one. That song is burned into my head.
Jamey
@cathyx: Dick Cheney casts the deciding vote. Quack-quack.
pseudonymous in nc
And the then-Sen. Obama was proved fucking right on that one. Alito’s a kiss-up, kick-down kind of guy.
Even if the facial challenge goes down and you get an eighth-generation Arizonan Hispanic guy in the Homer Plessy role, I’d expect this pack of SCrOTUSes to uphold the law and trim its edges.
DougJ, Head of Infidelity
@burnspbesq:
We’ll see. I meant no disrespect with this post, and in fact I was talking about eemom, no you. But either way, I didn’t mean it as put down.
TenguPhule
Ah yes, good old Death Continent where almost everything wants to kill you except some of the sheep. England exported criminals there before, mind taking our Republicans now too?
The prophet Nostradumbass
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity: So, what was the point of the post, then?
burnspbesq
@Mark S.:
Not really. They did a case to “clarify” the standards for getting a preliminary injunction three or four years ago, IIRC.
They just like fucking with our heads, I guess.
dollared
@burnspbesq: I wish for the case to proceed, for exactly the reasons you suggest.
However, it’s hard to ignore how wrong you are on the exclusivity of the Feds over immigration. Scalia gave the game away with his “what is sovereignty for, if you can’t exclude foreigners?” For Scalia, Arizona is an independent nation that agreed to a few contractual points when it signed the Articles of Confederation. He thinks Arizona is the Sovereign, not the United States.
6-3. In this case, Roberts is the swing vote, because he’s keeping his powder dry for narrowing the Commerce Clause in the ACA case.
burnspbesq
@DougJ, Head of Infidelity:
And I didn’t take it that way.
We’re all just having fun here. Most of the time.
burnspbesq
@dollared:
Except that Arizona was never a party to the Articles of Confederation, which were superseded when the Constitution was ratified in 1787. And if Scalia is the originalist he claims to be, and not an Eleventh Degree Black Belt in Calvinball, he can’t get around the original understanding of the Supremacy Clause, as expressed by Hamilton in The Federalist, No. 33.
JGabriel
__
__
DougJ @ Top:
Wherever Scalia and Alito go, Thomas is sure to follow. So that makes it 6-3. Factor in Kagan’s recusal, and we’re down to 5-3, at best.
Once more, it all rides on Kennedy and Roberts.
.
Calouste
@TenguPhule:
America got the Puritans and Australia got the criminals. The general view is that Australia got the better deal.
dollared
@burnspbesq: Don’t tell me that the Articles of Confederation have been superseded. Tell Scalia – I didn’t suggest that Arizona has sovereignty.
And fix your snarkmeter. You and I know the law – it’s simply been apparent that these assholes will do anything for their team, the law be damned. Sigh.
Jilli
Good lord Alito is pathetic. You’d think a sitting supreme court justice could show a little more maturity and perhaps dignity than rolling his eyes like a spoiled 11 year old (we saw another example at the SOTU address with the head shaking). What’s next, an all out kicking and screaming temper tantrum?
sherparick
This may be our last semi-free election. If Romney wins and the Republicans take the Senate, I would expect first the defenestration of the filibuster and “hold” rules which McConnell has used to basically stop up Government the last 3 years. Pay backs are hell and McConnell will want none of it.
Next, for defenestration will be the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which is “no longer necesary” and then a bunch of “anti-fraud, voter ID laws, and probaby authorization of poll taxes so as to to reshape the electorate to be as permanently Republican as possible.
Then of course it will be the tax cuts for rich people and defense spending for the new wars.
Finally, will come the dismantling of the Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, initially for those younger than 55, but by the next election cycle, the budget crisis caused by teh wars, depression, and tax cut and resentment at the old folks getting benefits the rest of the population will never see will put them in the bullseye.