Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court says asking "Papers, please" is perfectly okay, but overturns rest of Arizona immigration law   (supremecourt.gov ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

14016 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

392 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 10:30:03 AM  
Both a bad and a good day at SCOTUS. Reaffirmed Citizens United, mostly struck down SB 1070 but kept the immigration check requirement, and thankfully ruled that indefinite life in prison for juveniles is cruel and unusual.
 
2012-06-25 10:57:00 AM  
And Roberts was the key vote. How about that.
 
2012-06-25 11:31:21 AM  
They can ask for your papers, but they can't do anything but admire them.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:08 AM  
Sheriff Joe won't take this lying down.

GO JOE!
 
2012-06-25 11:33:12 AM  
I'm not going to read all that shiate.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:56 AM  
i45.tinypic.com

Meanwhile on Freerepublic...
 
2012-06-25 11:34:46 AM  
As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.
 
2012-06-25 11:34:52 AM  
Not really, Subby... They said that it could be okay or could be bad, and it was preemptive for the district court to enjoin enforcement before it was shown to be bad.
From the syllabus:
(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption-at least absent
some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation
from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume
§2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:14 AM  
Apparently, everybody won.That is the interpretation that I keep hearing about it .I suppose it is time for a fiesta?
 
2012-06-25 11:35:20 AM  
The ruling didn't uphold that provision, it left it open for later review upon implementation.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:34 AM  
CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:35 AM  
Why did Scalia feel the need to talk about the DREAM stuff?

This is the guy that got all upset about the President talking about court stuff in a political setting, but he is talking about political stuff in a court setting?
 
2012-06-25 11:36:00 AM  
Wall of Text crit you for 45,290 damage.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:20 AM  
I don't need papers, now that I've learned to pee standing up.

//Nice one, Gotfire
 
2012-06-25 11:36:22 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.


That seems reasonable enough.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:54 AM  

diaphoresis: Sheriff Joe won't take this lying down.

GO JOE!


If something pisses him off, that's usually a good thing.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:57 AM  

marius2: I'm not going to read all that shiate.


Basically, the provisions imposing criminal liability and detention are unconstitutional because they intrude on powers congress specifically designated as powers of the federal government.

The provision mandating immigration checks are TBD. On their face there is no problem; states routinely cooperate with the feds to check status. The measures might be unconstitutional in their implementation, but they haven't been implemented yet.
 
2012-06-25 11:37:22 AM  
In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?
 
2012-06-25 11:37:30 AM  

GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.


Or driving while being brown.
 
2012-06-25 11:37:51 AM  

GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.


Then there's going to be a sudden outbreak of faulty tail lights, failure to yield, loitering, littering, etc. in AZ.
 
2012-06-25 11:38:10 AM  

James!: They can ask for your papers, but they can't do anything but admire them.


Ever seen those Prostitution round-up mugs?

Get ready for illegal residents to get their faces plastered all over.
 
2012-06-25 11:38:34 AM  

GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.


Just thinking about it... if these illegal immigrants are going to try to blend in so well that they drive responsibly, speak a common language, send their kids to school, pay taxes, keep their lawns tidy, don't do drugs... well, shiat. Let 'em all in. They sound like good neighbors to me.
 
2012-06-25 11:38:44 AM  

VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?


You don't want to get pulled over in Mexico for anything. Rarely does it end well.
 
2012-06-25 11:38:59 AM  

Gotfire: [i45.tinypic.com image 306x310]

Meanwhile on Freerepublic...


I went on Freerepublic to try and find a funny post to repost here, but that website is an utter piece of shiat. It looks like it was designed by the same dumbfark who started it.

WEB GURU.

my2bucks.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-25 11:41:40 AM  
THAT'S the guy who founded Chicken-farking Land? That's.....that's about what I expected him to look like.
 
2012-06-25 11:41:51 AM  

jonnyh: GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.

Then there's going to be a sudden outbreak of faulty tail lights, failure to yield, loitering, littering, etc. in AZ.


Which is why the court said that even then, civil rights and therefore the Constitution might be violated in future cases. They invited further case-by-case challenges as the law is enforced.
 
2012-06-25 11:42:07 AM  

VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?


i.ytimg.com
 
2012-06-25 11:42:09 AM  
I can not get enough SCOTUS or POTUS
 
2012-06-25 11:42:17 AM  

Theaetetus: Not really, Subby... They said that it could be okay or could be bad, and it was preemptive for the district court to enjoin enforcement before it was shown to be bad.
From the syllabus:
(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption-at least absent
some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation
from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume
§2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect..


Yeah, it was a quick and dirty headline based off of Scotusblog's update. Sadly, they hadn't noticed the narrow interpretation of section 2 at the time. So this ruling is even better!
 
2012-06-25 11:43:05 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: GentDirkly: CNN says they can only ask for your papers if you've already done something else illegal, like driving recklessly.

Or driving while being brown.


I like how black and brown both start with the letter b. Makes it easy to write the reason for the stop on the ticket.
 
2012-06-25 11:43:14 AM  

bulldg4life: Why did Scalia feel the need to talk about the DREAM stuff?

This is the guy that got all upset about the President talking about court stuff in a political setting, but he is talking about political stuff in a court setting?


He's Justice Scalia. He'll do what he wants.
 
2012-06-25 11:43:59 AM  

Coco LaFemme: THAT'S the guy who founded Chicken-farking Land? That's.....that's about what I expected him to look like.


Dude needs to take a f*cking shower.
 
2012-06-25 11:44:59 AM  
Remember when the legal commentators were remarking, during oral arguments, that the Supreme Court appears to be favoring Arizona and poised to deal another defeat to Solicitor General Verilli?
 
2012-06-25 11:46:31 AM  

Nabb1: And Roberts was the key vote. How about that.


Have heard some speculation that Roberts may be unhappy with the widespread perception of the SCOTUS as being a tool for conservative politics, especially after Citizens United, and has tacked slightly more leftward in recent decisions. I don't think there's much evidence for that viewpoint, but this certainly stands out. We'll see what his ACA vote is on Thursday too.
 
2012-06-25 11:46:32 AM  
Isn't the part not overturned remanded to the 9th Circuit with instruction on how to strike it down? Seems like the whole thing is toast.
 
2012-06-25 11:47:07 AM  
No, but if you are a Guatemalan illegal immigrant in Mexico and get caught you're going to have a bad day.

It has been proposed that we take Mexico's illegal immigrant laws, translate them into English, and enact them just to get them to STFU. They are more strict than ours.
 
2012-06-25 11:49:02 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: VGA Hole: In Mexico, do they stop white people and ask them for proof of citizenship?

You don't want to get pulled over in Mexico for anything. Rarely does it end well.


In my experience, it usually ends with a bribe...
 
2012-06-25 11:49:33 AM  

gilgigamesh: marius2: I'm not going to read all that shiate.

Basically, the provisions imposing criminal liability and detention are unconstitutional because they intrude on powers congress specifically designated as powers of the federal government.

The provision mandating immigration checks are TBD. On their face there is no problem; states routinely cooperate with the feds to check status. The measures might be unconstitutional in their implementation, but they haven't been implemented yet.


As I understand it, it would be OK for local police to check your immigration status while they're holding you on other charges, but it wouldn't be legal for them to hold you for no reason other to check your citizenship. So it you get pulled over for suspected DUI, they can call INS to see if your a citizen, but as soon as you pass the breathalyzer and touch your nose they have to let you go even if they're still waiting for word from the feds.
 
2012-06-25 11:49:40 AM  
Fark you, Arizona!
 
2012-06-25 11:49:45 AM  
Looks like Joe has nine more birth certificates to investigate.
 
2012-06-25 11:50:52 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: As I understand it, Arizona police can't ask random people for their immigration papers. They can verify whether someone they arrested for other reasons is a citizen, then share information with ICE about illegal immigrants they catch doing other things. That's about it.


That's the crux of it. It's a very reasonable decision, I think (as someone opposed to SB 1070).

Now if SCOTUS could've made a reasonable decision on the Montana campaign funding case.
 
2012-06-25 11:51:08 AM  
Yes, these are important decisions, but the one I want to know is:

"U.S. Supreme Court Set to Issue Health Care Decision on June 28"
 
2012-06-25 11:51:49 AM  
I have to laugh.... Gov Jan Brewer is touting this as a victory.

Which tells me that she probably misunderstood the decision.
 
2012-06-25 11:52:22 AM  
No different than doing a warrant check on everyone detained... like they do now and have done for years. I just hope this will lead to more self deportation.
 
2012-06-25 11:52:52 AM  

ToxicMunkee: bulldg4life: Why did Scalia feel the need to talk about the DREAM stuff?

This is the guy that got all upset about the President talking about court stuff in a political setting, but he is talking about political stuff in a court setting?

He's Justice Honey Badger Scalia. He'll do what he wants.


FTFY
 
2012-06-25 11:52:57 AM  

mithras_angel: I have to laugh.... Gov Jan Brewer is touting this as a victory.

Which tells me that she probably misunderstood the decision.


she's not a bright woman.
 
2012-06-25 11:52:59 AM  

mithras_angel: I have to laugh.... Gov Jan Brewer is touting this as a victory.

Which tells me that she probably misunderstood the decision.


Well with all those pages and the binder clip... you expect her to read all that?
 
2012-06-25 11:55:16 AM  

Rincewind53: Both a bad and a good day at SCOTUS. Reaffirmed Citizens United, mostly struck down SB 1070 but kept the immigration check requirement, and thankfully ruled that indefinite life in prison for juveniles is cruel and unusual.


More bad than good because Citizens United being upheld sets the US on a pretty much irreversible course politically. I had a some small hope that they might have used this an opportunity to reverse that ruling.
 
2012-06-25 11:56:07 AM  

mithras_angel: I have to laugh.... Gov Jan Brewer is touting this as a victory.

Which tells me that she probably misunderstood the decision.


"Papers please" is what they really wanted. They won.
 
2012-06-25 11:56:19 AM  
i3.ytimg.com

"Your papers....are not in order."
 
Displayed 50 of 392 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report