And as was the case with the SCOTUS hearing on Obamacare, some liberals are shocked – shocked I tell you, – that the Supremes just might uphold the Arizona immigration law – a law they call “racist.”
The Hill:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared highly skeptical of the Obama administration’s objections to a controversial immigration law in Arizona.
In a case steeped in election-year politics, conservative and liberal justices alike expressed doubts about the government’s argument that the Arizona law was an unconstitutional intrusion on the federal government’s power to enforce immigration law.
You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman to be seated on the bench, said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
The Obama administration sued Arizona over the controversial measure its Legislature passed in 2010. The law set off a political firestorm and has since been copied by other states.
Read More at American Thinker. By Rick Moran.
Photo Credit: laura padgett (Creative Commons)
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
With the Contract with America, the FED Bankers have a strong hold on our country. The Justices are the Only Hope the citizens of America have to get out from under tyhe FED. If the Justices chose to honor Constitutional Law instead of Statatory Law, and Anull the Contract with America, Common Law would result, and everything would change drastically for ALL Politically envolved.
The problem with the SCOTUS is that the members are ASSIGNED FOR LIFE. There is no threat to remove an erring Judge, and that is a security loophole that the framers of the Constitution never considered. The fact that a judge is promoted to the SCOTUS is interviewed by the President and Congress in order to establish POLITICAL leanings is a major flaw in the system. The individual should not be assigned based on political leanings, but on LAW knowledge and JUDICIAL DECISIONS that did NOT violate ethics.
In my mind, judges who dismiss cases on technicalities such as time limits (especially in capitol crimes) should be at the very least censured. Judges that throw out a case because of illegally obtained evidence WITHOUT also disciplining those involved in getting the evidence illegally should be likewise censured for failing to be impartial. And the illegally obtained evidence is STILL evidence, provided it is not planted (and in such cases, the person(s) that plant such evidence should be punished severely, not just a small fine or suspension).
After all, their sole purpose is to uphold law and justice, and by ignoring wrongs done by police and investigators, justice is not equally served to all citizens.
After all, the police and investigators are citizens too, and should be equally accountable under the law, except where rules are in place to allow specific instances where they are allowed to break laws (such as speeding, use of weapons, etc. in the performance of apprehension of a criminal).
To sum up, a government that is not disciplined is what we have now, not what the Constitution was all about. Politicians have no fear of reprisals – they claim “diplomatic immunity” in their own country, completely disregarding the fact that DIPLOMATS are only messengers to a foreign land.
In short, they claim to defend our nation when all they defend is their positions of power.