Supreme Court: Arizona Police MUST determine immigration status. Section 2b

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:24 PM GMT
    Supreme Court: Arizona Police MUST determine immigration status. Section 2b

    This is the heart of the bill, and it stands for now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:32 PM GMT
    it said 5-3 ???? Who didn't show up for work? I assume they mean 5-4?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:54 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidit said 5-3 ???? Who didn't show up for work? I assume they mean 5-4?

    Not sure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 2:55 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidit said 5-3 ???? Who didn't show up for work? I assume they mean 5-4?

    Not sure.


    ACA is Thursday
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:06 PM GMT
    Did one of the new female justices recuse herself cuz she had some involvement in the case as some govt lawyer? ...or something along those lines.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:06 PM GMT
    I think they (AZ) should rewrite
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:10 PM GMT
    and make it so it sticks this time!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:10 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidDid one of the new female justices recuse herself cuz she had some involvement in the case as some govt lawyer? ...or something along those lines.


    I didn't think of that! That could be what's going on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:17 PM GMT
    they just need to be a little more careful with the rewrite so it sticks this time
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:20 PM GMT
    What do you guys think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:22 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidWhat do you guys think?

    My understanding is the law is written ok. The Supreme Court would want to see evidence of abuse rather than preemptively striking it down.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19136

    Jun 25, 2012 3:22 PM GMT
    Caslon19000 saidDid one of the new female justices recuse herself cuz she had some involvement in the case as some govt lawyer? ...or something along those lines.



    Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in Arizona v. United States, presumably because she worked on the case during her tenure as President Barack Obama's first solicitor general.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 3:49 PM GMT
    I can't predict. I think its 50-50. I don't think they have the time or should be doing it piecemeal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 4:36 PM GMT
    Sorry, I was talking about the ACA
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 4:44 PM GMT
    SB, what were you talking about?
  • jock_1

    Posts: 1492

    Jun 25, 2012 5:01 PM GMT
    I'm not sure if it was a win or a loss for illegal immigration. I just hope it doesnt open up the boarders. They are still open enough.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 25, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    freedomisntfree saidit said 5-3 ???? Who didn't show up for work? I assume they mean 5-4?

    Not sure.


    Kagan abstained.