Supreme Court

There are 28 comments on the ABC News story from Jun 25, 2012, titled Supreme Court. In it, ABC News reports that:

The end of the Supreme Court term is quickly approaching. Along with landmark decisions about the health reform law and Arizona's controversial immigration law, there are interesting cases having to do with jail sentences for minors and people who lie about receiving the medal of honor.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Vet2

Fort Wayne, IN

#25 Jun 25, 2012
SUPRE COURT RULES:

1. Arizona (and other states) do not get to have their own immigration policies.

2. Arizona cannot create crime laws targeting immigrants.

3. Arizona cannot detain people simply because they might be illegal immigrants:

Although the court does not strike down the immigration status inquiry provision, SB 1070 provides that “[a]ny person who is ARRESTED shall have the person’s immigration status de-termined before the person is released,” but the COURT WARNS THE STATE NOT TO APPLY THIS LITERALLY PROVISION LITERALLY IF IT WANTS TO AVOID RUNNING HEADLONG INTO THE CONSTITUTION. Detaining individuals solely to verify their immi¬gration status 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. Unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE TO PROLONG THE STOP FOR THE IMMIGRATION INQUIRY.

4. Obama’s DREAM Initiative Is Legal: Finally, the Court opinion strongly hints that the Obama Administration’s directive allowing undocumented college students and veterans to remain in the country is lawful. Indeed, on page 17 of the opinion, the Court explicitly lists “a veteran” or a “college student” as two examples of undocumented immigrants who should not experience “unnecessary harassment.”
harvey

Columbus, OH

#26 Jun 25, 2012
Betterdays2012 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the FEDERAL government not upholding the immigration law ? That is the problem!!!!!!!!!!
That IS a problem, I agree, but it's a bipartisan problem. Neither party wants to do anything about it, and each one's afraid the other will use the issue against them in the voting booth.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#27 Jun 25, 2012
Retired POS wrote:
<quoted text>
The key portion has been upheld! Now the court is FORCING the feds to do their job!
Keep lying to yourself. It's funny to watch you pretend to have won something.:)
harvey

Columbus, OH

#28 Jun 25, 2012
takemetotheVet wrote:
<quoted text>
The major provision of the law was upheld, yes a great victory. Illegals must show their papers when stopped by the police.
False, AGAIN. Police may check immigration status WHEN THEY STOP SOMEONE FOR A LEGITIMATE, NON-IMMIGRATION-RELATED REASON.

Watching you Righties pretend to have "won" when mostly you LOST is quite a hoot, but I'm not going to let you get away with lying.:)
Vet2

Fort Wayne, IN

#29 Jun 25, 2012
Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/...
harvey

Columbus, OH

#33 Jun 26, 2012
DoggieVet wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what I posted, chump, if that portion of the law had been struck down, they would not have been able to check for illegal status at all. Now they can. You sure seem to want illegals to roam at will, maybe a terrorist with a dirty bomb with them?
You sure seem to want to lie and slander other posters a lot, punk. Was half your brain shot away when your toy gun went off?

LOL
harvey

Columbus, OH

#34 Jun 26, 2012
kittyVet wrote:
<quoted text>
The JD sued Arizona who was only trying to protect their citizens from an invasion of criminal illegal immigrants and possible terrorists. Arizona didn't sue the JD.
Didn't say they did. Your brain continues to malfunction. There is no "invasion of criminal illegals and possible terrorists" either, nutball. You're listening to ol' Crazy Joe Arpaio too much.
harvey

Columbus, OH

#35 Jun 26, 2012
turtleVet wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe one of those illegals with a dirty bomb will visit N.J., chump.
Maybe you should wash your dirty underwear, chump.:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Supreme Court Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 1 hr Synque 20
News Choose carefully: The next president could shap... Apr '16 Le Jimbo 45
News NFL Team Asks Supreme Court to Consider 'Redski... Apr '16 discuss 1
News Senators offer praise but no vote for Obama's S... Apr '16 He Named Me Black... 4
News Cruz Wins Citizenship Case in Pennsylvania Supr... Apr '16 mediaaccess 2
News Supreme Court may decide against Va. Republican... Mar '16 goonsquad 1
News Westboro Baptist Church praises Supreme Court r... (Mar '11) Mar '16 loony liberals 17
More from around the web