Skip to main content

Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer (R)
Governor of Arizona.
Also, moron.
Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona really is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is she? After the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's insane "papers please" law, Gov. Tumbleweed-for-Brains is boasting that the Court totally upheld Arizona's heinous law:
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Right. So even though the Court struck down most of the law, the "heart" of it—the part where law enforcement can demand proof of citizenship if you look like you might be one of them thar illegals—has been upheld (for now). And that's the part of the law Brewer and the other racists really like.
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens.
Note to Brewer: a law that is inherently racist cannot, by definition, be applied in "an even-handed manner." Unless Arizona law enforcement is going to start demanding proof of citizenship from every blond-haired, blue-eyed Arizonan who gets pulled over too. And my magic eight ball says that's not fucking likely.
Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law.
You can practically see the sneer on her face as she dismisses "critics" who will no doubt be "preparing new litigation tactics." Because, again, the governor missed the part of the decision where the Court said most of the bill is bullshit. But oh well. At least for Brewer and the other racists who are focusing on the "heart" of the law they're allowed to enforce, the Supreme Court issued a big victory for the 10th Amendment and states' rights and all that good stuff.

Just ask the citizens of Montana.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:43 AM PDT.

Also republished by Your Government at Work and Baja Arizona Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, this brown skinnned girl who people (17+ / 0-)

    sometimes think is hispanic will not be going to AZ anytime during my life as long as this law is on the books.

  •  This woman has never been a natural blond (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lady blair

    Why all of sudden ,she trying to be one now

  •  The "Papers Please" law was a partial victory for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZedMont, glorificus

    both sides.

    Except the "papers please" part was upheld.

    Since the paper please part was the main focus of the debate, it's not a huge win.

    •  Not sure why people have a hard time seeing this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splintersawry, glorificus, PSzymeczek

      I suspect there is some naivete at play. All they have to do is report asking non-latino white people there status...not even sure they have to do it...who is going to check on whether they really did...

      I see this as win in the short term for the racists in Arizona...but maybe it puts Arizona in play...which is a political win, but not very helpful to the actual people impacted.

      I am pretty disappointed by the reaction here.

      By the way - does the law say "detain" or "arrested"?

      I have seen both show up in articles, and there is a huge difference.  You can be detained during a traffic stop.

      "But once John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker, then he’s going to have responsibilities to govern. You can’t just stand on the sidelines and be a bomb thrower." - President Obama, 12-07-2010

      by justmy2 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:03:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They Sent That Part Back To The 9th Circuit. They (3+ / 0-)

      didn't "uphold" it, they punted because it might be implemented in a constitutional manner.
      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. Pp. 22–24.
      641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
    •  It was upheld unanimously too n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  Pure Brewer. She loses 3 of 4 arguments and (15+ / 0-)

    claims victory, when even the one provision the Court upheld is tentative, based on whether it will be enacted in a discriminatory manner. Heck, with Joe Arpaio enforcing the law, we should only have to wait another week or two before someone brings a case.

    I just put this up: Decision on SB 1070 "significant win" for Obama administration.

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:47:49 AM PDT

    •  The Video of Brewer claiming victory (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mother Mags, PSzymeczek

      Not blaming Bush for the mess we're in, is like not blaming a train engineer for a fatal train wreck because he's no longer driving the train.

      by JML9999 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:07:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Her constituency is dumber than she is. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delilah, Mother Mags, PSzymeczek, exterris

      All she has to do is tell folks she won, and they will cheer her success.  They are too dumb to understand that they lost 3 out ot 4, and wil likely lose the 4th point soon.
      I am not visiting Arizona or doing business there until all this is "papers please stuff" is revoked.

      •  I Don't Know About That. The Freepers Have (0+ / 0-)

        figured it out - sort of.
        http://www.freerepublic.com/...

        SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
        And since they didn't win anything their fascist hearts demanded...
        To: pabianice
        Another dagger in The Tenth Amendment, and The Constitution!

        WARNING - Don't start counting chickens on 0bamacare! The deck is stacked against freedom!

        •  I've known some thoughtful Republicans (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          majcmb1

          who have been booted off Free Republic for allegedly supporting liberals--that is, Republicans who do not fully adhere to the tea party/religious right line.  That's some strange definition of a "free" republic, that.

          36, MD-8 (MD-6 after 2012) resident, NOVA raised, Euro/Anglophile Democrat

          by Mike in MD on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:53:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Brewer claiming victory (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, PSzymeczek, LeftyEngineer

      is be expected since she comes from the state of John McCain.  And we all know...

      This is good news for John McCain.

      I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

      by Delilah on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:40:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Somebody please snap a photo of Brewer and (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, JML9999, Matt Z, PSzymeczek

    Romney arm in arm toasting this ruling.  

    History merely repeats itself; it doesn't cure its own ills. That is the burden of the present.

    by ZedMont on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:48:12 AM PDT

  •  What is proof of citizenship? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leonard145b, eXtina, Matt Z, glorificus

    Is a driver's license sufficient under this law?  or only a passport?  Could someone please answer this?

    •  Well (7+ / 0-)

      That's the quiz of the question. Legal migrants are forced by federal law to carry their green cards or passport or whatever on them all time. I've heard a good photocopy could do, but then you'll be on the hands of the officer. By the way most don't carry them because they are very important, cost a lot to renew and you can get fined if you lost them.

      Anyhow the problem is for citizens. To prove you are a citizen you'll need your USA passport on you or you birth certificate or if you are naturalized I imagine the letter or whatever ICE gives you. How is an officer of a small town in AZ going to determine and solve this issue? Racial profiling galore.On top the state let anyone in AZ to be able to sue the cops if they thought they did not do their job.

      If that provision of suing is gone I can tell you most cops will ignore the legal in the country part, although not the militant Arpaios and other nativists, because it is a mess to find out on their department dime and will eat their time and resources.

    •  Proof of citizenship is a passport... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      milton333, Matt Z, Delilah, glorificus

      ...or a birth certificate, along with a photo ID showing you are the same person.

      Quite a bit of paperwork to carry on your trip to buy milk at the corner store. Otherwise you run the risk of ending up in jail.

      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

      by chuco35 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:58:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  SB 1070 section 2(b) (4+ / 0-)
      A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

      1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
      2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
      3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
      4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

      http://senatebill1070.com/...

      •  As a non-resident of AZ (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vera Lofaro, glorificus

        I guess here's the question.  I have a driver's license, it's not an AZ one, and I have no idea whether my state "requires proof of legal presence in the U.S." before it issued me the driver's license.  And I bet that an AZ cop also has no idea whether my state requires proof of legal presence in the U.S. before issuing.

        So, if I travel to AZ on business and rent a car, and I'm stopped, what happens?  If I can produce a driver's license, am I okay?  Or SOL?  

        Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

        by milton333 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:05:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What if you live in California and travel to (0+ / 0-)

        Arizona, and all you have is a CA driver's license, does that mean in order to travel to Arizona from any state in the U.S.A, you have to bring a passport?

        •  No, (0+ / 0-)

          You're good. Valid driver's licenses are just fine.

          •  How can they be sure that "crazy California" (3+ / 0-)

            didn't give a bunch of "illegals" driver's licenses. You know how they complain about California and our sanctuary cities. Also, how do they know if it is a valid D.L., not just from California, but from any other state as well.

            •  sheer numbers (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laughing Vergil

              If that were the case, the state police would have to pull over about 40-50% of all Interstate traffic here. It would be chaos. After all, if they wish to avoid Federal ire, they have to apply the law equally to one and all.

              Not to mention, that this only applies if one has already been stopped and/or detained for another reason.

              In the winter time it would be even worse, as somewhere near at least a few hundred thousand snowbird drivers come here to the state to live for the season. Cops aren't that stupid, and aren't about to scare off non-residents if they can help it. I have seen plates from all across the country here, and a good number from Canada as well. About the only US territory I've never seen here is Puerto Rico, and that's probably because I live far away from the interstate.

    •  Out-of-state driver's license (7+ / 0-)

      So an out-of-state driver's license is insufficient--this bodes poorly for Arizona's tourist industry....

      •  To paraphrase Full Metal Jacket... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus

        "Anyone who runs is an illegal. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined illegal."

        Keep public water public.

        by here4tehbeer on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:11:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Any valid US issued ID will suffice... (0+ / 0-)
        ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
        •  Please finish the statement.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PSzymeczek

          ... if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

          It is this condition that makes an out-of-state license insufficient, as at least three states - Washington, Utah, and New Mexico - issue some form of legal driver identification to potential illegals.

          Also, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck supports doing so in CA, and has started a dialogue on this.  It may not go anywhere, or it may become the fourth state to issue licenses to potential illegals.

          --------------
          How can Obama's administration have failed if everyone who is unemployed only has themselves to blame?

          by Laughing Vergil on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:30:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  An interesting facet of the law (0+ / 0-)

      If you have an Arizona drivers license, you have a legitimate presumption of citizenship.  Specifically, there are four types of ID that are acceptable:

      • A valid Arizona driver license
      • A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license
      • A valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification
      • Any valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance.

      Mind you, I still don't see how they can implement it in a constitutionally sound manner, but these exemptions are in place.  

      Note that a Military ID card does not count by these rules, so the state could end up arresting soldiers for deportation....

      --------------
      How can Obama's administration have failed if everyone who is unemployed only has themselves to blame?

      by Laughing Vergil on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:24:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  An Arizona driver's license (0+ / 0-)

      should be sufficient for residents, since a resident has to show proof of citizenship to obtain an AZ DL.

      The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth. - William O. Douglas

      by PSzymeczek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:30:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great. Let her think (or pretend) she's won. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek
  •  I'd support organizing to help Latinos move out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    of Arizona, and others who wish to do so as a result of this decision in support of bigotry.

    Once again, SCOTUS demonstrates why we must not allow President Obama to lose the upcoming election.

    Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

    by RJDixon74135 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:51:01 AM PDT

  •  Frau Brewer (7+ / 0-)

    Has been hanging out with little Joe and his hate brigade too long. I'm sure they're really fond of using the government as an instrument of their prejudice, but that isn't what is now enshrined in their divinely inspired Constitution.

    I'd suggest she read some of the amendments, but who am I kidding.

    The only difference between (Mitt) Romney and George W. Bush is that Romney hasn't destroyed the American economy, yet - MoT

    by Herodotus Prime on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:51:02 AM PDT

  •  CNN keeps leaving off the part about (9+ / 0-)

    If you're already in custody for another reason......

    And CNN wonders why they're in the toilet.....

    Not blaming Bush for the mess we're in, is like not blaming a train engineer for a fatal train wreck because he's no longer driving the train.

    by JML9999 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:52:34 AM PDT

    •  The shits is that "being in custody for another... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, glorificus, PSzymeczek

      ...is nothing more than getting stopped for having an expired inspection sticker. That'll make for a horrible experience

      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

      by chuco35 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:02:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I interpeted this ruling all wrong, but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Delilah, glorificus, PSzymeczek

        I thought they said, in order to be detained the police officers need a warrant and have to have probable cause to stop a person. I also thought it said, in essense, that Arizona can not make it illegal to work or look for work in Arizona. So in other words, Arizona can not make up their own laws concering immigration policy.

        •  yep, wrong (0+ / 0-)

          The law allows anyone under "custody" to be checked for papers if there is probable cause (ie she's Mexican looking) to believe she is undocumented. Getting stopped for an expired inspection sticker amounts to being in custody, at least while you are stopped.

          "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

          by chuco35 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 12:39:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It's a huge win for bullies. (4+ / 0-)

    Thank goodness the rest of the law was struck down.

    •  Do we need any more proof that we live... (0+ / 0-)

      ...in a country that practices low-grade but consistent apartheid?

      "Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates.” Simone Weil

      by chuco35 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:04:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "for now" seem to be the key words (4+ / 0-)
    upheld (for now)
    I've been using the word "upheld" as well, but the reality seems to be they just let that portion of the law go forward, and are willing to hear future challenges to it.
  •  This brown skinned person (8+ / 0-)

    will be going to AZ for family reasons shortly. G'head. Ask me for my papers. I so dare you.

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:54:46 AM PDT

  •  A very tentative approval of "papers, please" (9+ / 0-)

    The actual Court ruling did not bless the "papers, please" law.  Rather, it noted that the law could be construed by the state to only apply to those who had been already been detained legally, which would be legal.  But if the state construed it more broadly, it would not be.  Because the law hasn't been applied yet, it is not yet ripe for challenge.  From the Court's summary:

    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. Pp. 22–24.
    It seems to me to be blessing the law to the extent that it resembles "Safer Communities" or whatever that national program is, but not to the extent that it stops people for Walking While Brown.
  •  Read this part -- Supreme Court justifies Obama! (7+ / 0-)

    "A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . . . Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal. . . . . Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation's international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return."

    TAKE THAT, FOX NOISE!

  •  Fox News reports the outstanding victory for Jan (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    skillet, eXtina, JML9999, Matt Z, Delilah

    •  I'm wondering about these "parts" plural (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999, milton333, Hey338Too, PSzymeczek

      that have been upheld. 3 out of 4 provisions were struck down. Was there any other part of the law that the admin challenged that the court allowed to go forward?

    •  And MSNBC graphic says, Supremes (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus, PSzymeczek

      strike down 3 out of 4 provisions of the law. I guess spin is everything. We better be ready for the ACA ruling. If they strike down the mandate, Fox will be playing it as they overturned ACA. We need to remind folks that our side didn't want the mandates anyway, it was just included by the urging of the insurance providers, when parts of the law said they could not exclude those with pre-existing conditions. I am already hearing the spin on that right now, how if the mandates are struck down, you insurance rates will go through the roof because they are foced without mandates to insure those with pre-existing conditions.

    •  My Yahoo News (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSzymeczek

      headline says something similar.  Even Alex Wagner on MSNBC started her show by asking if this was good news for President Obama.  I like her  and this was MSNBC but--really?  You have to ask that question???  

      When SCOTUS rules to strike down 3 of 4 provisions (that's 75% of the issues at hand in the Arizona law that came before SCOTUS), it is pretty clear; when the 4th provision is ruled with a lot of room to be struck down in the future... it is very clear.  If you don't grasp this, you have no business being delivering the news.

      Keeping people misinformed is the mandate of the media, I swear.

      I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

      by Delilah on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:47:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If your purpose (0+ / 0-)

    is harrassing people into 'self deportation', then actually putting them in jail and keeping them there legally is not a problem.  Especially when the state has many law enforcement similar to Sheriff Joe.

  •  Actually, even the "win" for them on the (8+ / 0-)

    "papers, please" provision was no more than a pyrric victory.  The Court said:

    The nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating the validity of §2(B). The Federal Government has brought suit against a sovereign State to challenge the provision even before the law has gone into effect. There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, 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 creates a conflict with federal law.... This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
     emphasis mine.

    All the Court did was say that a Federal challenge on the provision was really not ripe.  If the provision is implemented in a manner which results in racial profiling, then a challenge on Equal Protection grounds will be in order.

    Ultimately, the only thing that matters with respect to preserving choice is who will be nominating the next Supreme Court Justices.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:57:24 AM PDT

  •  How did... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    untorqued, PSzymeczek

    ..expect her to act?   Express tearful regrets?

    Brewer is acting exactly like any teabagger would act upon receiving word our illustrious Supreme Court has upheld a racist law.

    What does it accomplish when you use Daily Kos front page to cuss a teabagger governor for reacting the way the whole world knew she was going to react?

    Daily Kos Rule of Thumb #1: Any optimistic prediction for a Democratic candidate is a slippery slope to complacency.

    by wyvern on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:58:10 AM PDT

  •  Headless Zombie in the Desert 'problem' solved. (4+ / 0-)
  •  How will she spin Romney's upcoming loss (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Irixsh, PSzymeczek

    in November? That ought to be a doozy!

    Myth Romney - 2012 - If You Want Honesty, Vote For The Other Guy!

    by kitebro on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:59:06 AM PDT

  •  some of those AZonians are just so tired of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    majcmb1

    having to look at people who resemble the ones who lived there for a few thousand years. So inconvenient for them, really.

    Tied in knots trying to keep wingnuttia satisfied with SCOTUS, who keeps on delivering the goods on many other questions that come before.

    Citizens United being the poster child today, but ACA coming soon.

    OTOH, madatory life w/o parole was overturned, so that at least gives a little hope to some otherwise hopeless cases of kids tried as adults.

    Fear is the mind-killer - Frank Herbert, Dune

    by p gorden lippy on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Not based in reality! (4+ / 0-)

    So Ms. Jan of Arizona sez, "the Supreme Court says that our new law is 3/4 stupid....so we win!".

    She got hit with the "stupid stick"...AGAIN!

  •  I'm still confused as to if Roberts knew which way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cazcee

    Kennedy was coming down on this. It seems odd he split from the conservatives on this, but looking at what the prior ruling was, a 4-4 decision would have pretty much taking care of the whole law, not leaving this ambiguity. Something tells me Roberts participated in some serious tomfoolery here.

    •  With my normal disclaimer.............. (0+ / 0-)

      of “I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong:” I will attempt to address your concern.

      As I recall from what I read a long time ago on the inners workings of the Supreme Court; the positions taken by the justices on an issue are not secret. So, yes Roberts knew Kennedy’s position on the ruling.

      After all the oral arguments and briefs in and reviewed; the justices are polled as to their position. Once the preliminary majority/minority spilt of the justices is known; I believe the Chief Justice then decides which justices will be responsible for the preparation of the majority report and the dissent. The chief justice can appoint himself to write either.

      During the writing of the majority and dissident; all the justices have the opportunity to review both and sometimes based on the arguments put forth in support of or dissent from a position; justices can flip.  The gist of the process is that, in most cases, each of the 9 members of the panel will “sign off on” either the majority report or the dissent which gives the final split that is published with the court’s verdict.

      During the course of the Court’s deliberations justices can and do change their positions but it is not a secret.  While the possibility of “hanky-panky” is strong with the current SCOTUS; I don’t think that there is any evidence of any here

      The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

      by cazcee on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:48:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Roberts is pro-business, and the way I read (0+ / 0-)

      the ruling, part of it was Arizona can not decide that it is against the law to work or seek work in AZ. It sounds to me as if he is looking out for those argribussiness in AZ who make huge profits from drawing on the pool of undocumented workers. The fact that it is good for undocumented workers is just ancillary, the fact that it is good for business profts, I think was his motive. The reason he is there is to protect the intersts of business, no matter what. That is the reason, perhaps the mandates will be upheld, good for business.

  •  A valid Arizona driver's license (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splintersawry

    is sufficient to stop any further investigation by law enforcement into immigration status.

    A police officer making a stop always asks for a driver's license.

    So, any traffic stop that leads to detaining a person of questionable immigration status will be upheld as "even handed".

    You trying to spin this as a defeat for Arizona, Kaili, is laughable.  This was the essence of the bill.. and the one part of the bill that every front pager at dKos railed against for months.  But now it's merely a minor point? too funny.

  •  Arizona's "It's a Dry Hate" endures n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, glorificus, PSzymeczek

    GOP = Greedy One Percent

    by Palafox on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:07:56 AM PDT

  •  Tea Party overreach (0+ / 0-)

    This is the only ruling that could have been tolerated. States must be taught that legislating against Hispanic Americans is wrong, immoral, illegal, and will not be tolerated by a democratic United States government. These anti-immigrant laws are exposing the hateful core of the GOP. Any position that does not involve rounding up every Hispanic in the ol' USA at gunpoint and sending them on the next military transport back to Mexico City is tantamount to "amnesty" in the eyes of the Republican voting base. Throw these laws out..  http://www.sunstateactivist.org

  •  Politico is whoring Brewer's spin hard (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Delilah, PSzymeczek

    Headline: "SCOTUS clears key part of Ariz. immigration law"

    Big surprise there, I know.

    We're through being cool. Eliminate the ninnies and the twits. -- Devo

    by Woodrow Stool on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:10:35 AM PDT

    •  Why does any progressive (0+ / 0-)

      pay attention to Politico?  Why do hosts like Ed, Rachel, and Rev. Al allow Politico shills on their programs?

      The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth. - William O. Douglas

      by PSzymeczek on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:42:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm just curious, does this (0+ / 0-)

    mean that they can still arrest and hold anyone without papers in those new privatized prisons they plan to build, and will the taxpayers of this country be forced to pay the bill for the incarcerations?


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:11:10 AM PDT

  •  Brewer is the left wing of AZ racist craziness (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    Seriously.  She's taking a mostly-defeat and depicting it as a victory so she can move on.  She knows this crap may have served her political interests at one point but it doesn't any more.  The craziest of the crazies will, ironically, see this more accurately for the mostly-defeat that it is, because their whole franchise is in being oppositional.  Joe Arpaio doesn't have to govern anything.

    Romney '12: Bully for America!

    by Rich in PA on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:11:56 AM PDT

  •  They.....Are.....Delusional (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil, Delilah, PSzymeczek

    No matter what happens in this country, tea baggers claim a win.

    If the stock market goes down, it's Obama's fault.  If the stock market goes up, it's because corporations think Romney is going to win.

    If gas prices go up, it's Obama's fault.  If gas prices go down, it's because Obama's has manipulated the market.

    If the gunrunner program goes bad, Obama & the WH were behind it.  If Issa says Obama & the WH had nothing to do w/ Fast & Furious, it's his Attorney General's fault.

    The Republican spin is equal only to the Republican loop of denial.  They work it 24/7.

  •  Amazing. Republicans never can be wrong, so they (0+ / 0-)

    spin, deny, revise, and create a parallel universe of make-believe, and repeat it over and over. Most of the Republican Party leadership could be diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.

    In general, emotionally healthy people base their feelings on facts. Those with borderline and narcissistic personality disorder, however, may do the opposite. When their feelings don't fit the facts, they may unconsciously revise the facts to fit their feelings. This may be one reason why their perception of events is so different from yours.
    http://www.bpdcentral.com/...
  •  Bet she's feel differently... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    If we started profiling leathery sacks of flesh.

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:21:10 AM PDT

  •  Profiling is common among LEO's across the (0+ / 0-)

    nation.

    It's also common practice for the US Gov't...

    Yesterday, a New York Times op-ed blasted President Obama's ramp-up of the "Secure Communities" program, an information-sharing program between federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement agencies. Under Secure Communities, local jails run all arrestees’ fingerprints through not only criminal databases, but also immigration databases, in an effort to deport convicted drug traffickers, gang members, and other violent criminals. This screening happens even if the local prosecutor decides there’s no basis for a criminal charge. The problem is: Secure Communities has led to racial profiling.
    http://www.aclu.org/...
    •  Every time I leave my home... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PSzymeczek, splintersawry

      and go to Tucson, I'm profiled by the Border Patrol. To leave the border area, one must pass through checkpoints run by the BP looking for drugs and people.

      As a white, my profile consists of this: "Have a good day!" and a wave through. Even if you're brown, they aren't too likely to do much other than ask if everyone is a US citizen. The nonchalance is mostly because they know if anyone is trying to smuggle anybody or anything past, they'll choose another route through the desert. If the dog smells something though, all bets are off.

  •  In Gov. Brewer's world... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    SB 1070 is only "mostly dead".  There's a big difference between "mostly dead" and "all dead".  Mostly dead is "slightly alive".

    Now where have I heard that before...

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    "What's next?" - President Josiah Bartlet, The West Wing

    by shaf on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:29:07 AM PDT

  •  Set up for a challenge? (0+ / 0-)

    Just a question: The portion that "stands" was actually part a two parter where law enforcement was supposed to check and arrest - they can no longer arrest on the spot if I understand the ruling correctly. However, since we are supposed to be protected equally, couldn't we begin to count to find out how this is applied disproportionately along clearly racial lines and challenge again in the courts?

    From the Southwest, Living in the Midwest & Loving the Purple that is Ohio.

    by Loganpoppy on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 09:48:43 AM PDT

  •  I can't wait till the AZ cops (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek

    start pulling over blond, busty females and asking for proof they're not undocumented Swedish immigrants.

    Mitt Romney: the Etch-A-Sketch candidate in the era of YouTube

    by Cali Scribe on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

  •  If I was an AZ cowboy (0+ / 0-)

    (and not one of them thar "dressage snobs"),

    I might say Jan Brewer looks like she was "rode hard and put away wet."

  •  Daily Kos Invective (0+ / 0-)

    I generally share the political viewpoints consistently expressed at this site, but I must protest against the gratuitously insulting language employed in this piece and elsewhere.  There is no need such terms as "idiot" and "Tumbleweed-for-Brains".  It has the effect of lowering oneself to the level of Teabaggers and other right-wing polemicists.  Do you not understand that such language alienates moderates and reasonable conservatives (and often even liberals), thus giving aid and comfort to the bad guys?

  •  Someone in AZ needs to do a real... (0+ / 0-)

    ... cost/benefit analysis of how much this law has burdened the state.  That CBA should be used against Brewer and the legistators that passed this bill when they run for re-election.  The CBA should not only include the legal fees incurred by the state, but also the business lost due to the ill-will engendered by it.  I'm pretty sure that it can be documented that these people wasted millions of the state's tax dollars, and they should be held accountable for it.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:26:17 AM PDT

  •  Are you suggesting that all 9 (0+ / 0-)

    Supremes are racists? The "papers please" component was unanimously upheld.

    •  That's not exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

      The justices (sans Kagan) unanimously held that it was too soon to determine that portion of the law. So Arizona is welcome to try to implement it, at which point, it may well go back to SCOTUS, where, based on today's ruling, it seems likely SCOTUS will throw that part out too.

      This really wasn't the victory Brewer and righties claim it was. At all.

  •  One part of the commentary is wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek
    Unless Arizona law enforcement is going to start demanding proof of citizenship from every blond-haired, blue-eyed Arizonan who gets pulled over too. And my magic eight ball says that's not fucking likely.
    You missed a tiny section - and I believe that it will be their first attempt to try and make this "in accordance with the US constitution" and "in an even handed manner".  Your statement should be:
    Unless Arizona law enforcement is going to start demanding proof of citizenship from every blond-haired, blue-eyed Arizonan with an accent who gets pulled over too. And my magic eight ball says that's not fucking likely.

    --------------
    How can Obama's administration have failed if everyone who is unemployed only has themselves to blame?

    by Laughing Vergil on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 01:17:25 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site