The Supreme Court trys to split the diffrence on immagration.

[Plane]

http://twitter.com/#!/shermancourt/

http://start.toshiba.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9VK7DFO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1018


  I need explained to me how a state law that repeats a federal law "undermines" that federal law.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Requiring that anyone who might look like an illegal to carry an ID at all times is discriminatory.
Should the cops detain and demand ID from Scalia because he resembles a possible Mafioso?

Read the decision.

[Plane]

  The laws in question do not allow that.
If Scalia were stopped in Arizona , for a improper lane change or something, should he have the right to refuse to identify himself ?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If he is driving, he must show his license.

If he is walking, it is unlikely that he could make an improper lane change.

[Plane]

If he is driving, he must show his license.

If he is walking, it is unlikely that he could make an improper lane change.

  Traffic cops do jaywalkers too.
   Does this state of affairs discriminatre against the poor and minoritys?

[BT]

Arlo Guthrie & Emmylou Harris - Deportee

[Xavier_Onassis]

A policeman has no constitutional right to demand ID from someone walking unless they are doing something seriously illegal, and jaywalking is not seriously illegal. The Supremes ruled on this a long time ago.

Of course, the policeman has the POWER to arrest him, but then the walker has the right to sue for false arrest and he would win.

[Christians4LessGvt]

[Christians4LessGvt]

You can't go on a cruise without a passport, you can't get a driver's license without 14 forms of identification, if you get pulled over in any state you must show a license and proof of insurance, if you want to purchase alcohol or tobacco you must show identification... but in Owe-bama-land any criminal intruder can climb the fence and be given food stamps, a work permit, and their kids can be sent to finest colleges, all on the taxpayers dime. WHAT A COUNTRY!

[sirs]

Well, at least now the Supreme Court is immune from the claims of some RW Activist Bench, if any/all parts Obamacare are struck down

[Plane]

Well, at least now the Supreme Court is immune from the claims of some RW Activist Bench, if any/all parts Obamacare are struck down

Could that be what they were thinking?

Kinda dissapointing.

Obamacare will not survive the next president in any case, so perhaps it is less important than immagration which is a big mess from a way back.

[sirs]

Well, at least now the Supreme Court is immune from the claims of some RW Activist Bench, if any/all parts Obamacare are struck down

Could that be what they were thinking?

No, I doubt that.  The disappointment is summed up in Justice Kennedy's comments, on how important it apparently is to be an empathetic Judge, vs one that merely upholds existing law

But it DOES provide all the cover needed as some sort of Right Wing bench if Obamacare is struck down, and negates Obama from using such a ruling to claim how he needs 4 more years to get the proper "empathetic Judges" appointed

 

[Plane]

  The way I see it , the supreme court has failed again to define what is a citizen.

Something that they have always done poorly, they fail at again.