Posted on December 12, 2011

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arizona Immigration Law

Fox News Latino, December 12, 2011

The Supreme Court has agreed to rule on Arizona’s controversial immigration law, setting up three politically charged cases -the health care overhaul and a fight over Texas redistricting maps- on its election-year calendar.

The justices said Monday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person’s immigration status if officers suspect the person is in the country illegally.

The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits.


In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge’s ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070.

Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an undocumented immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected unauthorized immigrants without a warrant.


10 responses to “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Arizona Immigration Law”

  1. BO_Bill says:

    Southern border management is not federal government incompetence. Southern border management is a federal government program to dilute, dumb-down, and divide what they plan to be their future subjects. Their program won’t work by the way. While this particular group of parasites are proving themselves capable of tearing down Cathedrals, they do not possess the ability to build as much as a shack.

    And there is a lot of re-building that will need to be done. Here is to hoping that the Supreme Court does the right thing in the meantime.

  2. Dave C says:

    I hope and pray that Arizona may win this one. This could result in a huge exodus of illegals from that state.

    Each race should have its own country. I am an ethnic nationalist. The blacks should have Africa, and the Hispanics have all of central and Latin America.

    The USA will be much better off when they take their drugs, rapists, murderers, and thieves back to their own homelands.

    But from a Constitutional standpoint, states don’t have the authority to regulate immigration. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

  3. Anonymous says:

    How ironic that a flagrant violation of our Constitution, the co-option of state powers illegally by an out of control federal government is remanded to our Supreme Court, not to address the matter but to enforce it.

    Our Constitution is not ambiguous about the issue. It states directly and forcibly that there are specific limits on federal power to regulate interstate commerce ONLY, except with regard to the entire country going to war. That’s it. Everything else is to be the purview of the states. Yet, here we have the ultimate in corrupt federal government making a mockery of our constitution by trying to get corrupt judges to find a way to so twist the words as to support the opposite of what it says in plain language.

    And if they don’t, or simply can’t? Does anyone not understand that the federal government, particularly under Obama, simply does what it wants anyway. Heck, they took us to war in Lybia and did not even bother to tell us. They murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians in one of the grossest crimes against humanity since the soviet genocides. Most dire of all is the manner in which it stopped. Russia cruised three aircraft carriers into the region, no doubt outfitted with nukes and told, not asked, not advised NATO to get out…..or start WWIII here and now.

    With that sort of stuff going on, can the US still claim the rule of law? Our citizens expect the rule of law?


  4. Question Diversity says:

    Again, this will not be a hearing on the constitutionality of SB 1070, but on the judicial wisdom of enjoining parts of SB 1070 while the constitutional proceedings take place. As of now, there has not yet been any ruling on SB 1070 from any level of the Federal judiciary on constitutional grounds.

  5. Mr.White says:

    Is Sotomayor going to recuse herself from this case, considering the fact she is a card-carrying member of La Raza; a Hispanic supremacy group, with a propensity to advocate on behalf of those who violate our immigration laws (not to mention sovereignty as well as open borders). I would suspect that La Raza is on public record as being in opposition to SB1070.

  6. Anonymous says:

    First of all, Kagan is required to sit this one out and will not vote on the issue. We all know what side the “wise” Latina is on and she will almost certainly be joined by comrades Ginsberg and Breyer in voting against the law. I’m sure Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will rule largely in favor of the measure. That leaves only Kennedy. If he votes with the “conservatives” the law will be upheld. However, if he votes with the others it will result in a 4-4 tie. In that event the decisions of lower courts will stand. And they have butchered most of it.

    Although these lower courts only have jurisdiction in western states like AZ so theoretically eastern states like AL will still be fighting things out. And maybe lefty Ginsberg will be gone if AL’s law goes before the court. This is the only reason Obama absolutely cannot win another term in my opinion. Yes everything else will be the same no matter who wins, with the exception of who ends up on the Supreme Court. The same way conservatives forced Dubya to appoint individuals like Alito when he would rather have had Harriet Myers AND Alberto Gonzales, a Gingrich or a Romney will toe the line if we keep their feet to the fire on this. But Obama will continue appointing marxist ideologues no matter what.

  7. HH says:

    What kind of country even has to consider such laws in the first place, let alone requires a Supreme Court to validate the madness of a nation apparently at war…with itself?! The elites don’t even pretend to be concerned with the will of the citizens of this moribund country anymore. Left, Right, it makes no difference – our overseers will destroy us yet. These are the people we VOTE for, just to add insult to injury – as if voting one way or the other will help us! We need to wake up already – this problem is terminal, and no voting of any kind is going to change it!

  8. HH says:

    Note also that this article is from “Fox News LATINO!!!” And foolish Whites believe this network is their friend because they are the “conservative” alternative! Yeah, real “conservative!”

    Wake up folks!!!

  9. WR the elder says:

    To #5, I’m sure Sotomayor will not recuse herself. Indeed, I’m sure the primary reason Obama put her in the Supreme Court was to make sure that immigration laws will not be enforced.

  10. Luke says:

    The new mantra that must be adopted by all White European people who are racially healthy is: Ethnostates.

    The geographic territory which used to be the USA is done. Stick a fork in it. The Cultural Marxists have succeeded in destroying the old USA and we sat in front of our TV’s watching criminally prone minorities playing sports or drugged up Hollywood celebrities shaking their booty on Dancing with the Degenerate Stars and let it happen.

    Ethnostates are the only answer that will guarantee the survival and existence and secure a future for white people and their children. Oh, and let us all not forget – race treason will be a capital offense in the new White Ethnostate. We will not tolerate a repeat of the sort of treasonous, subversive, suicidal and ultimately genocidal behavior that resulted in the death and destruction of the nation that was bequeathed to us by our 100 percent White European ancestors.

    Hence, say goodbye to your self-hating, self-loathing White liberal family members, friends, or acquaintances. Wish them luck in the pursuit of a place to live in one of the non-white, multicultural ethnostates.