ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase

Rate this Entry

75 years ago, in the 1930's, a radical right wing US Supreme Court tried to destroy President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his legacy by ruling that key New Deal legislation was unconstitutional. Now, at least on the basis of the hostile questioning by the Court's right wing justices during oral arguments on President Obama's signature legislative achievement, the health care reform law, an equally reactionary majority may be about to do the same to him.


Today, Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court, as the entire nation knows, will hear oral argument on what is arguably President Obama's other most significant achievement so far. This is using the federal courts to protect America's immigration system from assaults by state legislatures, not only in Arizona, but in the deep South, which are intent on bringing back the old system of racial segregation and oppression, but with Hispanic immigrants as the targets, instead of African-American US citizens.


As this is being written before the beginning of the oral argument, no one can predict what will actually happen. But it would not be surprising if questioning by the radical right bloc on the Supreme Court is just as hostile to the idea of the federal government's trying to "interfere with state's rights" in immigration matters as it was in the case of the federal mandate to purchase health insurance.


In both cases, the real target is President Obama. In the health care case, the object was to make him look too weak to be able to carry out his health care reform plan. In the case involving Arizona's immigration law, the object would be to make the president look too weak to be able to preserve federal control over immigration in general and to protect the basic rights of minority immigrants, regardless of their legal status or lack of it, in particular.


In both cases, arguments over the meaning of the law and the Constitution are likely to turn out to have been nothing more than a side show. The real event will in all probability be to destroy the president politically by making him look incapable of carrying out any initiative which would stand up in court.


Roosevelt responded to the Supreme Court's attempts to destroy him and his legacy by trying unsuccessfully to pack the Court. Of course, this was totally illegal and unacceptable, but it did at least make clear to the public that the Supreme Court was a very major political issue. Today, all of Roosevelt's main New Deal initiatives are recognized as legal and Constitutional.


If today's equally far right wing Supreme Court majority continues with its apparent goal of destroying President Obama politically, no matter what law and precedent may provide, it will also make itself into a major political issue, even more than it has already done with Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United.


In that case, President Obama would have no choice but to respond in kind - not, of course, by trying to pack the Court, but by speaking out , as he began to do after the oral argument in the health care reform case, but then shrank back from when some of his right wing opponents said "boo". Indeed, President Obama has far too often stepped back from speaking out or doing what justice and humanity require. His record as America's deporter in chief shows that, if nothing else.


More than that, the fact that the president is turning America into a Deportation Nation may even be used against him during oral argument on the Arizona case: why is President Obama fighting so hard to stop the states from persecuting minority immigrants while he is locking up and deporting record numbers himself? Aside from the far right wing Supreme Court majority, if it eventually upholds the Arizona immigration law, the president may have to face an even more implacable opponent of fairness and justice toward immigrants - himself.

Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to Google Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "Bloggings: Will the Supreme Court continue trying to destroy President Obama by upholding Arizona's racial profiling, anti-immigrant hate law? By Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. Matthew Kolken's Avatar
    I predict that the Supreme Court will vote 8-1 (Thomas will dissent) and strike down this law as an overreach.

    I also don't buy into the proposition that the conservative justices are seeking to destroy the President politically.

    He is doing a fine job of that all by himself.
  2. Roger Algase's Avatar
    Matt, if I had $10,000 availalble for that purpose, I would make you a Mitt Romney style bet that the decision will go the other way, 5-4. Since you are not willing to give Obama a pss on his anti-immigrant policies (and neither am I, though I aam not planning to throw my vote away in November), why give one in advance to the right wing Supreme Court majority? I think they will soon show that they do not deserve a pass on this issue.
  3. Matthew Kolken's Avatar
    I should have said 7-1... Kagan recused herself.

    Sotomayor: federal governments' case was "not selling very well."

    Not a good sign.

    I've argued before Justice Sotomayor. From my experience her comments are a pretty good indicator of how she will rule.
  4. Matthew Kolken's Avatar
    Justice Stephen G. Breyer remarked that he did not see a problem if "all that happens is a policeman makes a phone call.... I'm not clear what your answer is to that."

    Swing voter Justice Anthony M. Kennedy: "So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?"
  5. Roger Algase's Avatar
    I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the sheer ignorance of immigration law shown by the comments of some of the Justices that Matt mentions during the Supreme Court's oral argument on the Arizona "Wo sind Ihre Papiere?" anti-immigrant hate law. Finding federal court judges at any level (outside of the 9th Circuit) who understand anything about immigration at all is not that common.

    Even Justice Sotomayor, the "Wise Latina", did not seem to be living up to that title in her comment either. I expect to be blogging more about this in Friday's ID.
  6. Jesus's Avatar
    No. A church wniddeg in Mexico is not a legal marriage. It is only a marriage in the church, not by the government. You need to have an Acta de Matrimonio from the Mexican government (civil wniddeg) for it to be considered legal in Mexico or any where else.
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: