Another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for Obama administration at Supreme Court?

posted at 8:01 pm on April 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

How do you know you’ve had a bad day at the Supreme Court — or in Donald Verilli’s case, another bad day?  When a justice who is presumably sympathetic to your case tells you your argument “isn’t selling very well” and you might want to try coming up with another, you’re probably having a bad day.  Once again, the rough treatment of the Solicitor General in a case brought by the Obama administration seems to signal that the White House will suffer a big loss:

The “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s tough immigration enforcement law is most familiar to the public. It is also likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. …

In Wednesday’s oral arguments, Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government’s complaint that state police officers would violate federal immigration jurisdiction if they check the status of someone they pull over. That argument is seen by legal analysts as the weakest in the government’s case against the Arizona statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government’s lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers would somehow deter the federal government from enforcing immigration by calling federal officials to ask about a person they stop. “Arizona isn’t trying to kick out anybody that the federal government hasn’t already said doesn’t belong here,” he said. “The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders and a state can police their borders.”

Scalia wasn’t the only justice to scoff, either:

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the Arizona law only allows legal status checks if the police officer has pulled over a person for some other reason. The Arizona officer is simply alerting the federal government to an illegal alien’s presence. “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here or not,” Roberts said.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who offered the most sympathy for the government’s position, pointed out to Verrilli that his argument “isn’t selling very well”—namely that a systematic system of status checks is somehow different from the current ad hoc one.

Nor did Sotomayor buy it herself:

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal governmenthas limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

That’s not to say that the White House lost on all fronts today, and it’s good to bear in mind that questions during oral arguments are not a flawless predictor of eventual decisions.  The administration did better when arguing that the provision of the law that imposes criminal penalties for illegal immigrants treads on federal jurisdiction, and on associated ID and work issues.  National Journal called these “almost a side note to the conversation,” with attention focused on the issue of whether a state can require law enforcement to check on legal residency when detaining suspects for other reasons.  Their report does include one exchange that might indicate that Justice Anthony Kennedy might still have some reservations:

However, Justice Anthony Kennedy pursued a line of questioning that could potentially lead the justices to invalidate the status check provision. He asked whether a person would be detained longer than they otherwise would have been because of the immigration status check. Clement was unable to assure Kennedy that the detention time would not be lengthened.

That’s interesting, but probably not all that relevant.  There are already limitations on how long suspects can be held without filing charges, usually 48-72 hours, and a question of legal residency would not override those limitations.  At the end of the time limit, the state or locality would have to either file some sort of criminal charges and have a judge determine whether to continue holding a suspect or offer bail, or release the suspect without charges.  If states and localities don’t have the ability to charge a detainee with illegal residency, and it seems likely that the justices will rule that way, then either the suspect would get arraigned on other charges or released.

If the White House loses their challenge to the most controversial part of the law, expect the Left to go after Verrilli again as they did after his difficult day defending ObamaCare.  He may have performed better this time, though, at least on the secondary issues.  And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Supremely hilarious!

BHO Jonestown on April 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Send in the clowns, I mean Verrilli!

tim c on April 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Sotomayor, you’re not so wise anymore. Watch your step, sister, leaving the reservation even for an instant is verboten.

Bishop on April 25, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Even the wise Latina was confused by the attorney…

right2bright on April 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Paul Clement, after destroying ObamaCare in the oral arguments in front of the Supremes, stars in this again.

Can we say Associate Justice Clement if Romney wins on November?

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.
“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Popcorn anyone?

CW on April 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for Obama administration

AKA “weekdays”

Chuck Schick on April 25, 2012 at 8:07 PM

It’s hard to sell a legal argument that amounts to “But but but liberals don’t LIKE this law!”

Verrilli has had a couple of tough outings, but you shouldn’t fire the hot dog vendor if all you give him is crap to put on the buns.

Adjoran on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I would think Verilli was a GOP plant if the GOP were smart enough to come up with a plan for such a scheme.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Double duty today Ed?

Is AP under a bright light as we speak because of the the secret Service fiasco?

Coincidence?

pain train on April 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Even the wise Latina was confused by the attorney…

right2bright on April 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

…she might get a call splaining things!

KOOLAID2 on April 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM

What?

Freaky pawn Kagan didn’t get the script ?

viking01 on April 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM

i know this is way o/t but context is finally coming out about the Sanford fla case…from reuters of all people:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

A pit bull named Big Boi began menacing George and Shellie Zimmerman in the fall of 2009.
The first time the dog ran free and cornered Shellie in their gated community in Sanford, Florida, George called the owner to complain. The second time, Big Boi frightened his mother-in-law’s dog. Zimmerman called Seminole County Animal Services and bought pepper spray. The third time he saw the dog on the loose, he called again. An officer came to the house, county records show.

“Don’t use pepper spray,” he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. “It’ll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you,” he said.

“Get a gun.”

it goes from there…details.

r keller on April 25, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Hmmm…It’s almost like when it comes down to brass tacks…‘I Won!!’ doesn’t amount to a squirt of pi$$

BigWyo on April 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

What?

Freaky pawn Kagan didn’t get the script ?

viking01 on April 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM

Didn’t she recuse herself?

txhsmom on April 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Double duty today Ed?

Is AP under a bright light as we speak because of the the secret Service fiasco?

Coincidence?

pain train on April 25, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Ed posting in the evenings…? I could enjoy that.

22044 on April 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Freaky pawn Kagan didn’t get the script ?

viking01 on April 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM

She actually recused herself in this one, admitting she’d worked on it while SG.

Wethal on April 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Slow jam.

rogerb on April 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for Obama administration at Supreme Court

Let’s make November 6th an even worse day for them.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM

As Rush says, the Dems love to double down on failure. Send in the same clown who failed last time.

msupertas on April 25, 2012 at 8:17 PM

So did any of the Better 5 ask about the ” sanctuary” policy of cities and states ?

burrata on April 25, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Didn’t she recuse herself?

txhsmom on April 25, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Si’

CW on April 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM

She actually recused herself in this one, admitting she’d worked on it while SG.

Wethal on April 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

She found some time to work on it in between crafting the defense of Obamanation Care and playing softball with the other wymins….

BigWyo on April 25, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Are sanctuary cities illegal..?

d1carter on April 25, 2012 at 8:22 PM

Regarding being stopped longer than usual…

The status check being talked about is coming from being pulled over for a traffic violation. Unless the traffic violation rose to the level of criminal negligence or some other misdemeanor/felony I think we would all be outraged at the idea of someone being detained for 48-72 hours for something as simple as a speeding ticket, running a stop sign, or having a tail light out.

Also the government gives wide law enforcement wide latitude when borders are involved. The border search exemption currently pretty much allows cops to ignore the 4th amendment not just AT border crossings but within 100 miles of one. You think that border exemption won’t be exploited to wear away at other rights?

I agree with Arizona’s right to this law on a states right level, however on a human level I wonder how many people totally legal citizens will be inconvenienced by this law, and I wonder how you or I (or any other white person) would feel if we were detained for 48-72 hours near the Canadian border because we lost our wallet and stank of maple syrup?

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

One would think that President Obama would be able to do a better job of hiring an attorney, since Obama is supposed to be such an intelligent Constitutional “Scholar”.

Of course, President Obama also thought Joe Biden was the most qualified person in America to be his VP.

wren on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Even if the Dems lose this one, the “Do Nothing Senate’s” going to over-rule the ruling.

Rovin on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Let’s make November 6th an even worse day for them.

Bitter Clinger on April 25, 2012 at 8:16 PM

x 100

Rovin on April 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Can we say Associate Justice Clement if Romney wins on November?

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Depends. How old is he?

JohnGalt23 on April 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

You know being all knowing and better at most anything than most anyone Obama should have argued the case.

Reality Checker on April 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Freaky pawn Kagan didn’t get the script ?

viking01 on April 25, 2012 at 8:11 PM

She actually recused herself in this one, admitting she’d worked on it while SG.

Wethal on April 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Good to know she actually had admitted collusion. Unlike Obamacare.

viking01 on April 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Why doesn’t Arizona have the right to defend its borders? To say otherwise is pure dumb.

SouthernGent on April 25, 2012 at 8:32 PM

I’m not sure if Justice Kennedy understands the mechanics of a traffic stop check or the mechanics of a field stop on a person. If the officer runs a computer check on a license number or name and date of birth, here in Illinois, the LEADS/NCIC system checks for ICS warrants or holds automatically. As it is, when we come into contact with someone who is here illigally or even has a ICE warrant/hold it takes a miracle to get ICE to respond or even show any interest in the subject. Thanks to Ex-Gov Blago who made Illinois a “sanctuary state” some time ago. I don’t think that the argument of stop duration will play out.

ChicagoBlues on April 25, 2012 at 8:32 PM

If the White House loses their challenge to the most controversial part of the law, expect the Left to go after Verrilli again as they did after his difficult day defending ObamaCare. He may have performed better this time, though, at least on the secondary issues. And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.

Look for another WH press release stating that they “stand behind” Mr. Verrilli and “have total confidence” in him.

This being roughly equivalent to the same terms being applied by a pro baseball club owner, or a college board of governors and its football team’s alumni association, to a losing coach.

When a coach hears those phrases, he generally already has his bags packed, because he knows he’s halfway out the door. And the next thing he will feel is a very large boot up his backside.

I suspect that this was to be Mr. Verrilli’s chance to redeem himself. The failure, of course, was not his, but rather that he was once again trying to argue in favor of an administration policy whose only reason for existing boils down to “This is liberal/progressive dogma and shall not be questioned”.

Verrilli has to go. Otherwise, The One and his enablers might have to question those dogmas, and their actual relation to reality.

And that just isn’t going to happen, ever.

cheers

eon

eon on April 25, 2012 at 8:35 PM

He asked whether a person would be detained longer than they otherwise would have been because of the immigration status check. Clement was unable to assure Kennedy that the detention time would not be lengthened.

I sure hope so, otherwise they’d go after the immigration status check on the basis that it’s preventing thorough police work from getting done because of more things to cram into the same time frame.

Buddahpundit on April 25, 2012 at 8:41 PM

You can not defend the indefensible. States have every right to police their borders.

unseen on April 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Amazing what SCOTUS can do to an overreaching Administration…

Founding Fathers 2 (I’m also counting Obamacare)

PBHO 0

Khun Joe on April 25, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Another terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day for Obama administration

AKA “weekdays”

Chuck Schick on April 25, 2012 at 8:07 PM

Or, “days that have a ‘y’ in them…

massrighty on April 25, 2012 at 8:44 PM

I would think Verilli was a GOP plant if the GOP were smart enough to come up with a plan for such a scheme.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

More like a potted plant, it seems.

massrighty on April 25, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

That 72 hour rule would apply only if the arresting officer can establish “probable cause” to detain a person. That is a high level of suspicion of a crime being comitted. I don’t think you would find too many officers willing to risk a civil rights violation lawsuit over something like this. I have only seen such a detention happening if the subject who has been arrested in a unrelated crime and his/her “illegal status” is discovered during a fingerprint check or other computer check. Usually, here in Illinois, we only get ICE involved if the case is a felony or if the subject of the investigation has already been deported and has ilegally reentered. Misdemanor arrests don’t get much attention, unfortunately.

ChicagoBlues on April 25, 2012 at 8:46 PM

I agree with Arizona’s right to this law on a states right level, however on a human level I wonder how many people totally legal citizens will be inconvenienced by this law, and I wonder how you or I (or any other white person) would feel if we were detained for 48-72 hours near the Canadian border because we lost our wallet and stank of maple syrup?

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

That’s the point, isn’t it? If you have valid ID on you, then the inquiry is over in two seconds. That could happen at the Canadian border, if you don’t have ID. You have no business driving a car in AZ — or anywhere else in the US, without valid ID. If you get stopped and can’t produce ID, then the cops have every right to “detain you” until you produce ID. This is a no-brainier, and the people who oppose it are idiots.

JannyMae on April 25, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Notice how Sotomayor has once again told Verilli to stop his current argument and try something else?

“Change your answer so I can substantiate my vote in your favor”

BobMbx on April 25, 2012 at 8:49 PM

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

In most, if not all states, it is illegal to drive without a license. If you were to lose your wallet and choose to drive anyway, you could still be detained for that 48-72 hours anyway. This law changes nothing in that regard.

stvnscott on April 25, 2012 at 8:53 PM

For being such an expert on the Constitution, they seem to make an awful lot of mistakes.

John the Libertarian on April 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Even the wise Latina was confused by the attorney…

right2bright on April 25, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I don’t buy it. Its all show. Not unlike the few people who huffed and puffed and were going to hold the line on Obamacare….but in the end voted for it. Smoke and mirrors. With Kagan recused, a tie vote is a vote to maintain the 9th circuit ruling. The law is overturned and no one is to blame.
Maybe I’m just cynical.

Mimzey on April 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Team Affirmative Action meets reality.

jukin3 on April 25, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Are any of Obama’s law students successful? Have any of then made partner status? What percentage failed their bar exams?

meci on April 25, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

You’ve overlooked the basis of the question, which is probable cause. The law does not allow LE to demand ID just because you look like you’re not from here. Thats profiling. LE must first have a cause to initiate the contact, i.e.; a moving violation, public intoxication, etc. They are then allowed to ask for ID, including immigration documents if they suspect you might be here illegally.

BobMbx on April 25, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Sorry I forgot everyone here follows all laws, all the time, no complaints.

So no complaints if/when Obamacare is upheld right?

No getting uppity at TSA checkpoints?

Grow a spine people, if you want your rights you need to stand up for the rights of others.

Oh and to drive home the point, I agree with Arizona’s right to have that law and defend their borders. I just feel bad for people who are citizens who will inevitably be inconvenienced and possibly worse by this law.

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Depends. How old is he?

JohnGalt23 on April 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

He is in his 40′s, conservative and brilliant. Argued without notes when he appeared in front of the Supremes to beat down ObamaCare over 3 days.

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 9:07 PM

One would think that President Obama would be able to do a better job of hiring an attorney, since Obama is supposed to be such an intelligent Constitutional “Scholar”.

Of course, President Obama also thought Joe Biden was the most qualified person in America to be his VP.

wren on April 25, 2012 at 8:23 PM

One of the consistent features of Obama appointees is their general lack of ability. As Obama is always the most supremely qualified in the room to perform any task, he has limited himself to appointing persons less competent than he is, with these entertaining results. Look at all his appointees-the only one that is remotely qualified is Clinton and he probably appointed her to keep her from a potential presidential run this year.

talkingpoints on April 25, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I just feel bad for people who are citizens who will inevitably be inconvenienced and possibly worse by this law.

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Inconvenienced by what?

Mimzey on April 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM

So has anyone asked the big question lurking in the background: If both cases go against the WH, is Verilli a dead man?

nobar on April 25, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Well, I guess this administration’s incompetence is good in some regards.

The Notorious G.O.P on April 25, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM

You are making absolutely no sense on this issue.

No one will be “inconvenienced” without probable cause and without the documentation that all citizens are already required to carry by law.

stvnscott on April 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM

is Verilli a dead man?

nobar on April 25, 2012 at 9:11 PM

He is not below average in ability among Team Barry.

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 9:21 PM

This administration is so inept, their a laugh a day……… pass the popcorn ……

angrymike on April 25, 2012 at 9:22 PM

The administration did better when arguing that the provision of the law that imposes criminal penalties for illegal immigrants treads on federal jurisdiction,

The state imposes sanctions against individuals who violate federal law all the time. There is no state law that you have to pay your federal income tax, but if you are convicted of federal tax evasion then you can be disallowed from receiving a state license to practicing law.

scrubjay on April 25, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I just feel bad for people who are citizens who will inevitably be inconvenienced and possibly worse by this law.

Beermeliberty on April 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM

Citizens who are subject to a traffic stop by the police have already done something unlawful, so why should we feel bad for their perceived inconvenience?

NapaConservative on April 25, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Inconvenienced by what?

Mimzey on April 25, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Here is the problem , the ” papers” which illegals will be required to carry with them at all times, weigh
about 8 1/2 pounds .
People like you and me have DLs and IDs,
legal residents have Green Cards
and we have our insurance and registrations in the glove compartment of car,
but these special people on welfare and food-stamps who just arrived in our racist country and do not want to speak English
( because of their pride in their cultura) and because their land was stolen by us,
they are expected to carry that 8 1/2 pounds of paperwork per person , to show to the cops everytime when they are pulled over for driving drunk and without DL, and having drugs in a car which is stolen and with no insurance to boot.
Oh the imposition !!

burrata on April 25, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Are any of Obama’s law students successful? Have any of then made partner status? What percentage failed their bar exams?

meci on April 25, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Have any of them actually come forward to brag about their former “professor”?

Remember the last Democrat pResident? He also promised a transparent and ethical Administration.

Yet while pResident, one of his former Law Students found him in Contempt of Court.

He’s still considered a Rock Star by his Fluffers, even now.

Del Dolemonte on April 25, 2012 at 9:35 PM

The Arizona law only comes into effect if an infraction of the law is made. The Police then have the right and the duty to ask for I.D. If I.D. is produced, then questions of citizenship are over. how does this inconvience anyone. You were stopped for cause and you can be arrested, cited, or let go. Now if you have no I.D. well all bets are off.

jainphx on April 25, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Didn’t I hear a story that the Senate is preparing a new law to cover the possibility that they might lose?

Cindy Munford on April 25, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Yeah you did, Shumer the second dumbest, Oh wait, Biden is gone now, so the dumbest Senator has been making noises in that direction.

Come to think of it, there are many IGNORANT Senators. Patty Murry, Barbara Boxer, Diane Fienstein etal.

jainphx on April 25, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I think South Carolina and Texas should go to the Supreme Court versus the Justice Department and ask for an expedited hearing, before the November election, to deal with voter ID. I’m sure the Obama administration would lose another one. Just think of all the heartache and grief this administration has caused in the past 3 years.

Of course, the 2 cases that have already been argued aren’t settled yet, but there’s a great deal of hope the administration will lose both. If the voter id cases could be expedited (and the only way to stop the coming voter fraud epedemic may be to do this) the court would make the constitutional scholar look pretty foolish.

bflat879 on April 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM

It’s amazing a person with good critical thinking can completely desecrate a lefty lawyer because they are not able to think in a critical context. Usually a lefty talks in metaphors which can easily be taken apart if you are able to speak. Usually when you answer their metaphor they interrupt with other questions trying to justify their metaphor. I can’t wait for June, yahoo!

mixplix on April 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Bbbut ending voter fraud will kill thousands of jobs!!!

WeekendAtBernankes on April 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I would think Verilli was a GOP plant if the GOP were smart enough to come up with a plan for such a scheme.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Human Stuxnet!

IrishEyes on April 25, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Obama’s administration has the problem of mistaking their demagoguery for facts. If they realized the difference, they wouldn’t even challenge/defend these laws. This is the problem of living in an ivory tower, surrounded by yes men. Most here are trying to do the same for Romney by flaming anyone who disagrees with him on anything.

besser tot als rot on April 25, 2012 at 10:05 PM

So has anyone asked the big question lurking in the background: If both cases go against the WH, is Verilli a dead man?

Give the poor guy a break. He was sent into the Supreme Court to defend the constitutionality of ObamaCare, and to try to argue that having a state remind the federal govt that a given person might be a criminal is a bad thing.

That’s the legal equivalent of bringing a Nerf sword to a gun fight. Nobody could have argued those cases well.

FuzzyLogic on April 25, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Writing 20 years after the IRCA of 1986 Simpson and Mazzoli had this to say:

The foundation of IRCA was enforcement and border security, but to work, it required consistent funding: for agents to investigate workplace violations, for prosecution of employers who broke the law, for more Border Patrol agents, and for installing the latest in high-tech monitoring and surveillance equipment. We saw the need for funding to develop a simple, reliable and tamper-proof system, a “more secure identifier,” using cards or biometrics. Opponents from the right and the left savaged it as “a National ID,” although it was not something that had to be carried on one-s person but was to be presented only at the time of “new hire” employment or when applying for government benefits.

After two decades, the system is still not in place. Unfortunately, what is in place is the use of several different identifiers, which were meant to be temporary, and a flourishing underground economy engaged in creating fraudulent documents for illegal immigrants.
[from- Enacting Immigration Reform, Again
By Romano L. Mazzoli and Alan K. Simpson
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 15, 2006; 12:00 AM]

And here we are another 6 years down the road and what has changed?

If the Feds refuse to do their job, it seems to me that the States have to step in and make sure their borders are safe. The time has long past in waiting for the “Pirates on the Potomac” to act in our best interests.

OkieDoc on April 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Intellectuals always think they’re the smartest ones in the room… until they open their mouths.

mankai on April 25, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Funny how a courtroom that actually gets national attention during arguments, can cut away the BS that this administration tries to pass off! Hard to run away from serious pointed questions and hard not to look like a fool when defending ridiculous talking points!

bluemarlin on April 25, 2012 at 10:58 PM

First let me say that I don’t want to see our country overrun by illegals either, but it worries me that so many of you guys think this will only affect illegals. If you think that the police will only stop those who have broken a law, you are naive. If the officer wants to pull you over, they will, and say your back tire touched the white line back there in the curve or something. And considering that several states will give drivers licenses to illegals, are you sure a DL is all you need to go on? Legal immigrants need to have their all paperwork with them, but what if you just look Mexican? Should you have to carry copies of your birth cert, etc everywhere just because you look Hispanic and have a Hispanic last name? Remember, many Hispanics have been in this country for generations, might not even know a word of Spanish. They might have served honorably in our armed forces. Would you tell a guy named Jose Quintana he should carry extra ID just because his name sounds Hispanic? Of course you couldn’t actually tell Jose that because he is resting at the bottom of Pearl Harbor in the USS Arizona. But don’t you think his family has earned the right to travel through our country with no more trouble than someone named John Smith?

The Buzz on April 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

Depends. How old is he?

JohnGalt23 on April 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

He is in his 40′s, conservative and brilliant. Argued without notes when he appeared in front of the Supremes to beat down ObamaCare over 3 days.

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 9:07 PM

That all sounds great until you realize that he’d have to recuse himself over anything related to Obamacare. Until that stinker is dead and buried with its head off and a stake through its heart, it wouldn’t be safe to let the left wing go partisan.

cthulhu on April 25, 2012 at 11:26 PM

The problem for the left is that it needs a liberal judge or two more.

Obama can fix that if he gets another term of office. Then it won’t matter if the left’s positions are intellectually defensible or not.

David Blue on April 25, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Notice how Sotomayor has once again told Verilli to stop his current argument and try something else?

“Change your answer so I can substantiate my vote in your favor”

BobMbx on April 25, 2012 at 8:49 PM

The attitude of the liberal judges reminds me of the judge in the movie The Verdict, in cahoots with one side, advising its advocate on how to proceed and even jumping in to make his argument for him.

With enough judges like this voting in a block the quality of the arguments presented to the Supreme Court will be irrelevant.

David Blue on April 25, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal governmenthas limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

Say what? Given that line of argument, that the government can determine the extent of resources to expend, consider the following 911 call:

“Yes, what is your emergency? Someone is breaking into your home? I’m sorry, this is Thursday, we don’t do break-in calls on Thursday, please call again tomorrow”

AZfederalist on April 25, 2012 at 11:42 PM

Once again, the rough treatment of the Solicitor General in a case brought by the Obama administration seems to signal that the White House will suffer a big loss:

Not just one, but now two chances of SCOTUS slapping the administration?

Don’t tease me bro.

rukiddingme on April 25, 2012 at 11:44 PM

I would think Verilli was a GOP plant if the GOP were smart enough to come up with a plan for such a scheme.

alchemist19 on April 25, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Yeah…giving the GOP credit for something like that is almost on par with giving Bush credit for orchestrating 9/11. There is no possible way that pack of clowns could pull off such a scheme.

MelonCollie on April 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM

ChicagoBlues on April 25, 2012 at 8:46 PM

When did the police in IL stop using S.M.O.D.s to run driver info during traffic stops?/

Bobby Maurice on April 26, 2012 at 12:30 AM

Commenting on Hot Air –> Not worth the time.

Twice tonight the autopage refresh has wiped out what I have been typing.

Seriously? Who put together the software for this blog?

Somebody with only 2000 era software licenses?

Tell the Boss Lady she’s embarassing herself with this level of nonsense.

PolAgnostic on April 26, 2012 at 12:48 AM

it is ok however to “show your [lack of] papers” if doing so will get you deported so you can skate on being charged with a serious crime:

An illegal alien accused of running down a disabled Waltham man in a crosswalk the day before Thanksgiving, then fleeing the scene, may be deported to Guatemala a free woman without ever standing trial.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220426outrage_over_ruling_illegal_alien_accused_in_deathmay_go_free__without_trial/

the color of justice.

mittens on April 26, 2012 at 1:20 AM

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here or not,” Roberts said.

You’re just now figuring that out?

repvoter on April 26, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Can we say Associate Justice Clement if Romney wins on November?

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Depends. How old is he?

JohnGalt23 on April 25, 2012 at 8:25 PM

He’s 46, and he’d seriously be a great justice. When Kennedy or Scalia retires, we should put him on the court.

vegconservative on April 26, 2012 at 2:28 AM

And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.

Kinda hard to defend the indefensible…

Gohawgs on April 26, 2012 at 2:54 AM

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here or not,” Roberts said.

You’re just now figuring that out?

repvoter on April 26, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Remember that like everyone else who gets confirmed to the Supreme Court, John Roberts spent his whole previous life never noticing much less discussing any interesting or important case, especially not Roe v. Wade.

David Blue on April 26, 2012 at 4:12 AM

Another bad day for the Obama team. Maybe. “Don’t get cocky, kid.”

dogsoldier on April 26, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Obama did us all a huge favor by bringing on Donald B. Verrilli Jr as Solicitor General!

This imbecile has been a Godsend for conservatives!

Partial credit must of course be given to Obama himself and his gross overreach and poor legal preparation. Something Harvard Law and the University of Chicago Law School must be oh so pleased with!

LOL!

insidiator on April 26, 2012 at 8:10 AM

And once again, the problem was less with Verrilli and more with the administration’s positions that Verrilli had to defend.

Well yes. Bark and cabal do shoot from the hip. They screamed ‘raaaaaaaaaaacist’ which works as a community organizer. Bit harder for the lawyer you saddle with the case.

CorporatePiggy on April 26, 2012 at 8:12 AM

The “Wise Latina”
Finally admits the truth.
The White House screwed up.

Haiku Guy on April 26, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.
“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

This makes no sense whatsoever, and the wise Latina was understandably confused. If the Federal Government has limited resources, then why shouldn’t it allow state police to help it with enforcement of immigration laws, by pointing out violators that escaped the Feds?

If the Federal Government doesn’t have the resources, why do those decisions HAVE to be made at the national level? If so, then the Federal Government should give themselves the resources!

Steve Z on April 26, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Should you have to carry copies of your birth cert, etc everywhere just because you look Hispanic and have a Hispanic last name? Remember, many Hispanics have been in this country for generations, might not even know a word of Spanish. They might have served honorably in our armed forces. Would you tell a guy named Jose Quintana he should carry extra ID just because his name sounds Hispanic? Of course you couldn’t actually tell Jose that because he is resting at the bottom of Pearl Harbor in the USS Arizona. But don’t you think his family has earned the right to travel through our country with no more trouble than someone named John Smith?

The Buzz on April 25, 2012 at 11:22 PM

If a guy like Jose Quintana who served in the armed forces was pulled over for speeding in Arizona, he could probably show his military ID, and a police officer would probably write him a speeding ticket and let him go, just like for a guy named John Smith.

Steve Z on April 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Soto’s lifetime appointment calls for at least some creditability and this case is ridiculous. Note Kagan recused herself on this one – why not
O -Care. Unless they get a compatriot, my bet is one or both of them will not be there for their entire career. Libs cannot live as a minority.

democratsarefools on April 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Can we say Associate Justice Clement if Romney wins on November?

galtani on April 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM

I have no problem at all with it, but to be honest that is getting your hopes up too high. Looking at Romney’s list of appointees to the Massachusetts courts, he is far more likely to appoint Verrelli.

*sigh*

He is better than Obama. That does not mean that he is a conservative by any stretch, “severe” or otherwise.

Subotai Bahadur on April 26, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The problem for Vermicelli 9yeah, I know that’s not how ya spell it) is he can’t get any shine off that turd of a case.

44Magnum on April 26, 2012 at 6:34 PM