My Photo

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Classifieds

RSS feed

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

VIP Lawyer Network

CLE Seminars

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise

Services 4 LawFirms

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

EB-5

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE


ilw.com VIP

The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!

Copyright © 1995-
ILW.COM,American Immigration LLC.

Blog powered by TypePad

« Immigrant of the Day: Tommy Emmanuel - Musician | Main | Quick Take on the Arizona Case »

April 25, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834521fa969e2016304c1934f970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Transcript of Supreme Court Arguments in Arizona Case Now Online:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"It seems an odd argument to say the Federal
agency has to answer the state's question, but the state
can't ask it."

Indeed.


"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. I'm a little
12 confused. General, I'm terribly confused by your
13 answer."

Me too. What was THAT? Verrilli struggled trying to make a distinction between officers inquiring on their own (OK) and those compelled by state statute (not OK). I said that from the beginning: why would something already done without controversy on a local basis suddenly be prohibited simply because the same practice were made a statewide policy? It makes no sense.


"It is an effort to let you know
22 about violations of Federal law. Whether or not to
23 enforce them is still entirely up to you."

The interference with discretion argument = epic fail.

The comments to this entry are closed.