US Supreme Court Shocks Nation by Upholding the Constitution Read more: http://
@whiteheather39 (24403)
United States
July 28, 2011 10:08am CST
WOW!!! I am amazed! It has been a long time since I have read good news in Politics!!
In 2007, the state of Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). The law penalizes businesses who knowingly hire illegal aliens. Penalties can range from fines up to and including the revocation of the firm’s business license.
Of course all of the liberals in Arizona and the federal government were outraged that Arizona would take such a measure to defend its borders and citizens right to jobs that were being stolen by hundreds of thousands of illegals. LAWA was challenged on the basis of constitutionality and whether or not the states have a right to establish their own immigration laws.
Our founding fathers did their best to limit the role and power of the federal government while retaining most of the rights of government for the states. In 2008, two lower courts both ruled that LAWA was constitutional, but the opponents continued to fight it and pressed on to the US Supreme Court.
Today, in what is sure to be a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s law. Justice and Obama appointee, Sonia Sotomayor voted against the Arizona law and Obama’s other appointee, Elena Kagan, recused herself from the Court’s hearing on the matter. However, in a vote of 5-3, the Court upheld LAWA as being constitutional.
Read more: http://visiontoamerica.org/2732/us-supreme-court-shocks-nation-by-upholding-the-constitution/
However it come as no surprise to see who voted against the Arizona Law. It is such a pleasant surprise to see that there are some members of the Supreme Court who support our Constitution. The exceptions being being Obama's hand picked rotten apple!
I wonder why Elena Kagan recused herself? It is not as if she is of Latino descent. Has anyone any idea what her conflict of interest could be?
Your comments to this surprising news?
1 person likes this
10 responses
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
29 Jul 11
Thanks you all for very interesting comments and response.
@asyria51 (2861)
• United States
29 Jul 11
I agree that I would rather have her recuse herself than be biased. She had worked closesly with the obama administration so it stands to reason she would be biased on current issues. i hope that in the future she does sit in on more than half of the cases.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
29 Jul 11
The Supreme Court has had a pretty good track record for upholding the constitution over many years. I wouldn't say it is a complete surprise that they upheld the 10th Amendment in this case. I mean really this is a lot easier of one for them to uphold than some of the other things that have passed infront of them over the last few years. I think the only thing that was maybe easier for them would be the Video Game Ban that California was trying to pull.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
29 Jul 11
Yes perhaps it was one of the easier ones but it is just that lately I am so used to seeing only negative political news.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
29 Jul 11
Yeah it has been a pretty negative news time with the Republicans and Democrats both playing their little games with the United States's Credit Rating!
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
28 Jul 11
Well, hats off at least to Kagan for recusing herself. She was somehow involved earlier in challenging the law in the lower courts when she was the White House Solicitor General. It was the prudent thing to do as it would have meant a conflict of interests, even if she had voted to uphold the law.
Not surprised Sotomayer voted against it, she's a big open borders advocate. I exp3ected nothing less than her voting as she did.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
29 Jul 11
Thank you for the info on Kagan. Sotomayer was no surprise.
@celticeagle (166911)
• Boise, Idaho
29 Jul 11
THis is great on many levels. With justice issues in the news lately this is great to hear. The state needs this so badly and it even comes at a good time. Businesses will have change their tactics or be accountable. THis is so cool. I am still trying to take it all in.
@whiteheather39 (24403)
• United States
29 Jul 11
That is how I feel. Here in Georgia we have a large influx of illegals.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (166911)
• Boise, Idaho
29 Jul 11
I am in Idaho and there is alot of foreigners in the apartment complex where I live. Not illegals though as far as I know.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
28 Jul 11
I remember last year when Arizona passed their law that said cops could ask for ID under circumstances of reasonable suspicion.
Many people I'd personally classify as "liberal" said in result of that supposedly racist law, that Arizona should instead stick it to employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Yeah. When someone can make sense of that, I'll rant a little more about it. Until then, I'm wearing my confused face.
The whole thing about the immigrant issue is that it's not really an issue of right or wrong. It's all about compassion.
Those who believe America should have open borders and grant amnesty will oppose each and every measure while still managing to offer up another practical solution. But should anyone attempt to go with that solution, they'll deflect again.
All I want is honesty out of folks. If they believe in open borders and all-out amnesty for everyone, then stop playing politics, pretending to be practical, and take that stance.
This should have never went to the courts in the first place, much less the Supreme Court.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
28 Jul 11
Add to that, if that's what they want they should go through the proper legislative process to make changes. The USC already has immigration laws clearly written and the Arizona law simply mirrors that while adding penalties to employers that hire illegal aliens. The only difference is that in Arizona they actually plan to ENFORCE the law. If people don't like the immigration laws then they need to be changed at the federal level.
Instead we get sanctuary cities that operate in blatant defiance of federal law. Oddly enough Obama feels that it's far more important to oppose a law consistent with federal law than to oppose any that assist illegal immigration.
@nzinky (822)
• United States
29 Jul 11
I like the fact that Airzona has the guts to tell Obama and his Bandits that they need to keep their noses out of the States business more states should adopt the same law.....We have too many Illegals here now and when they don't obey our laws and think they are above then then the people who hire them should loose their business licenses and get a large fine then they will think twice or three times before they do something again....
@speakeasy (4171)
• United States
28 Jul 11
Everybody kicked up a fuss about this law whan AZ passed it and said it was racist and anti-immigration.
In reality is is simply a law that upholds existing federal law. Federal law states that people who are illegally in the country do not have the right to work in our country. This law is simply one that a state made to make sure that companies doing business in the state are actually complying with the federal law that is already in existance.
In other words, if you can't even follow federal laws regarding who you hire, AZ will warn you first and then take away your right to have a business in AZ. Let's face it, if a business can't even follow a simple law like this; what other federal and state laws are they disregarding?
I do not know why Kagan recused herself; but, she may own stock in a company located in AZ or one which is knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Also, there are a lot of illegal immigrants from all over the world here in the US - so, whether she is Latino or not has nothing to do with it. Illegal immigration is not about race; it is about breaking the law.
