Scalia blasts Obama in Arizona dissent statement

posted at 3:21 pm on June 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Can you say future recusal, boys and girls?  I knew you could:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday ripped President Obama’s new deportation directive when he offered his minority opinion on the Arizona immigration ruling.

The court tossed out most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but in his dissent Scalia raised eyebrows by blasting the Obama administration’s directive to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants though that policy was not a matter before the court in the Arizona case.

The conservative justice accused Obama of selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that he deems appropriate and said states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to wield power in such a way.

“The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits,” Scalia wrote.

SCOTUSBlog mentioned this at the time Scalia read his dissent from Arizona, and it produced more than a few figurative raised eyebrows on Twitter.  The deportation policy change has nothing to do directly with the issue in Arizona, although one could argue that there is an indirect relation.  The administration argued that federal resources are finite, and that the federal government has the authority to dictate how they get used and not the states.  That’s at least consistent with the argument Obama used ten days ago in the immigration policy change statement, saying that the White House would prefer to use scarce prosecutorial resources on deporting people engaging in significant criminal activity.

More to the point, though, is the danger of having a Supreme Court justice take a public stance on a public-policy issue that has at least a decent chance of becoming part of a court fight.  Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and others have already threatened to take Obama to court over the imposition of the DREAM act by executive fiat.  Thanks to this public outburst, Scalia has put himself in position for a recusal, since it’s pretty clear that he has a built-in bias on the specific issue.  It may have felt satisfying, but in the end the blast will do more damage than good.

The same might be true of the Arizona result for the Obama White House. As I argue in a piece written for CNN, the ruling was a victory for Obama and the Department of Justice, but the narrow reversal on section 2B gave Jan Brewer and other SB1070 advocates just enough room to claim victory for themselves.  The win won’t do Obama much good anyway, even if he can convince people that he actually did win:

Unfortunately for the administration, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court on the most controversial part of the law, the “show me your papers” provision that requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of people while enforcing other laws. …

But that narrow win is tenuous. The court pointedly did not rule that the provision was constitutional, which means that further court cases may well strike it down at a later date. Arizona can put it into effect, but it probably won’t take too much time before a case comes up that will put the provision back under scrutiny. …

First, the coming Obamacare ruling will vastly overshadow this nuanced win by Thursday morning. Second, this win serves as a reminder that the Obama administration has done a poor job of enforcing immigration law — and along with Obama’s recent decision to stop deporting some young illegal immigrants – border states have no reason to expect a second term that will improve on the first.

The ruling itself only reversed the 9th Circuit on 2B for applying pre-emption.  It made no ruling on whether the clause was constitutional on its own merits:

It was improper to enjoin 2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that 2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives.

That basically says that the federal government doesn’t pre-empt state and local officials from checking immigration status — which we already know, as the federal government trains state and local law enforcement how to do just that.  Once Arizona starts to put this into effect, though, the provision can still be challenged on other issues, such as due process, reasonable cause, discriminatory enforcement, and so on.  The Supreme Court hardly endorsed 2B in this decision, and they certainly left the door wide open to any other challenges.

Update: Let’s clear up a couple of things from the comments.  No, no one can make Scalia recuse himself and I’m not calling on him to do so, but appellate jurists are supposed to refrain from making specific public comments on matters that may come before the court.  It’s inappropriate, and that’s exactly what Scalia did in this case. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg inserted support for Obama’s immigration policy change into an opinion, you can bet that conservatives would be screaming for a recusal if/when a challenge to it came before the Supreme Court, and we’d be right to do so.

Second, Kagan didn’t recuse herself on ObamaCare, but she wasn’t being pressured to do so because of public statements of support; she hadn’t made any public statements of support.  The assumption was that she helped the Obama administration strategize on the legal defense of ObamaCare, but no one has shown any proof that Kagan did so.  E-mails surfaced that showed she was copied on those efforts occasionally while serving as Solicitor General, but nothing showed she took part.  It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, especially since more than one issue can arise which necessitates recusal.

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Why would this be right to do so? It’s the same thing with “news” journalism vs “opinion” journalism. It’s an illusion that justices (like news journalists) don’t have biases, ideologies, etc. Of course they do. Everyone does. Are we better off pretending they don’t have them or knowing what they are?

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM

An illusion perpetrated primarily by conservatives including Antonin Scalia via the federalist society. Conservatives invented the idea that “judicial activism,” i.e. the practice of judges allowing political beliefs to influence whether federal law was constitutional, was a bad thing. The chimera of “judicial activism” allowed the right to even mount arguments against Warren Court decisions like Brown v. Board by arguing that no matter how we may feel about school desegregation there’s no constitutional argument for taking away state’s rights to administer public education. Now that conservatives have been revealed as judicial activists, the Roberts court has been laying waste to decades of Supreme Court precedent, suddenly you’re hear advocating “well duh, of course judges have biases.” Its just a shame that it took you this long to admit that the “judicial activism” argument was pure politics itself, an attempt to deligitimize decisions that conservatives didn’t like.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

For the first time I believe this court will uphold O-Care. Scalia’s frustrations over the attack on state sovereignty feels like a warning shot over what he knows is coming Thursday.

Just brace yourself. Hope I’m way off on this…

PA Guy on June 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM

your on target

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I have to agree that Scalia’s outburst was inappropriate.

Monkeytoe on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

For the first time I believe this court will uphold O-Care. Scalia’s frustrations over the attack on state sovereignty feels like a warning shot over what he knows is coming Thursday.

Just brace yourself. Hope I’m way off on this…

PA Guy on June 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM

The intrade.com price on a strikedown has been going all month. I think this reporting on what Scalia said is just wishful thinking on the part of liberals to discredit Scalia, and Ed is responding to it.

pedestrian on June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I’ll post this today ahead of thurs. Kagen upholds Odumbo care, who would have guessed!

rjoco1 on June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM

I still MUST support Romney.

At least he doesn’t hate the Constitution.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM

I have a queasy feeling but I don’t see it as the end of the world as we know it. It may take years but I just don’t believe a majority of Americans want to live in Marxist/Socialist system.

d1carter on June 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Liberals are going off the deep end in dread of the the mandate being flushed. Scalia was just pointing out the illogic of the one of the parties positions. They do that in every case to explain their decision.

pedestrian on June 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

PA Guy, I advise you to go out and get a Bacon Cheesburger, extra bacon and a big gulp before Obama with the Obamaare Healthcare being upheld EO’s bans on Bacon, Big Gulps, saturated facts, oreos, salt etc

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Well look at it this way, if Bari was to win 4 more, god forbid, the economy will tank so badly, Americans might be going to Mexico for jobs, let alone them coming here………..

angrymike on June 25, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Alto! That’s two years in Mexican jail.
And, no free healthcare, housing, food stamps, jobs, and if you hatch an egg, t will not be a Mexican citizen.
It is the right thing to do. And just.

This thread is burning my butter.

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Update: Let’s clear up a couple of things from the comments. No, no one can make Scalia recuse himself and I’m not calling on him to do so, but appellate jurists are supposed to refrain from making specific public comments on matters that may come before the court. It’s inappropriate, and that’s exactly what Scalia did in this case.


Seriously, Mr. Morrissey?

The Most Corrupt Administration Ever is running amok and you want to assert that it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to use the current behavior of the SCOAMF’s administration to illustrate their corrupt behavior and the logical inconsistencies of their legal reasoning.

I am appalled at your lack of logical reasoning even more than your buying into the anti-SCOTUS pushback.

I would suggest you need to go off someplace quiet and reflect on this abomination of a post you have just made.

It is THE most shameful thing to appear on Hot Air since Allahpundit’s presumption of guilt for the three Navy SEALS inappropriately charged by military suck-ups to the Obama administration.

You should be ASHAMED of yourself.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Democracy isn’t dead, its for sale. Also corporations exist, so not sure why you put them in figurative “quotations.” Where we disagree is that a corporation is an individual, especially considering it is made up of many individuals. As far as I’m concerned, for a corporation to have first amendment rights it would have to be demonstrated that every individual in the corporations agreed with its political activities. Of course, we know that a small number of individuals excercise power over the corporation (and all the corporation’s employees in ways that make political dissent unpopular). How that entity could be equated with an individual human being before the law is a mystery to me.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I use “corporation” because liberals exclude many corporations from their tirades – specifically unions and newspapers and mainstream media outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC etc. These corporations spend millions of dollars running news and opinion programs that push a liberal agenda and viewpoint. We both know that if Obama was a Republican the news media would be 24/7 about imperial executive overreach and Fast and Furious would have been thoroughly covered by now. The Koch brothers and Romney couldn’t buy this kind of protection if they raised billions of dollars.

Corporations have free speech just like individuals do because of free association. You don’t like what individuals who freely associate as a corporation do with their money then you are free to not associate with them or give them money or be employed by them etc. To say that corporations shouldn’t have the same free speech rights as individuals is to say that if 2 or more individuals get together they shouldn’t have free speech.

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Democracy isn’t dead, its for sale. Also corporations exist, so not sure why you put them in figurative “quotations.” Where we disagree is that a corporation is an individual, especially considering it is made up of many individuals. As far as I’m concerned, for a corporation to have first amendment rights it would have to be demonstrated that every individual in the corporations agreed with its political activities. Of course, we know that a small number of individuals excercise power over the corporation (and all the corporation’s employees in ways that make political dissent unpopular). How that entity could be equated with an individual human being before the law is a mystery to me.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM

A few retorts…you apply the same rules to unions?

Secondly, you belong to a corporation voluntarily, so if you don’t like the donations they make, get another job. Your logic can be applied to any decision the corporation makes, including whether there is single or multi-ply tissue in the bathroom.

Thirdly, how do you supposed corporations like NBC, CNN, MSNBC would respond to not having those same first amendment rights?

Fourthly, if you or any other person doesn’t like what your corporation is doing, you are free to form your own group, pool your resources, and fight back.

Best ideas win, and all.

The Hammer on June 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM
I have a queasy feeling but I don’t see it as the end of the world as we know it. It may take years but I just don’t believe a majority of Americans want to live in Marxist/Socialist system.

d1carter on June 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

From what Dr Bennett said on his radio show a few days ago, Kids are coming out of college with a 35% approval of socialism, Communisim and Capitalism ranked lowest. I have no positive outlook for the future. As more and more Illeagals come into the country with their socialistic govt thinking, and not adapt to the American way of life by knowing our history, our language and just living with their own little communities there will be more more socialism coming.

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

We are screwed dude, this country is done for, The Constitution was written by old dead white guys and history began with Obama. 44% of the American Public approve of this, therefore we will fall into the abyss of darkness and be in line with Europe where the parasitic, can’t make it on their own classes suck up all revenues and therfore have one socialistic utopia

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

What is THIS???

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

“No, no one can make Scalia recuse himself and I’m not calling on him to do so, but appellate jurists are supposed to refrain from making specific public comments on matters that may come before the court. It’s inappropriate, and that’s exactly what Scalia did in this case. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg inserted support for Obama’s immigration policy change into an opinion, you can bet that conservatives would be screaming for a recusal if/when a challenge to it came before the Supreme Court, and we’d be right to do so.”

So I guess that it’s OK to slam the conservatives in the court during the State of the Union address. When we have a tyrant dictating law from his perch, somebody has to call him out. Congress apparently doesn’t have the political will to do it. We’re long past the time of the court upholding the Constitution. They now make law (mostly liberals) in order to circumvent the amendment process. It’s political voting. The content of the law has nothing to do with it anymore.

cajunpatriot on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

An illusion perpetrated primarily by conservatives including Antonin Scalia via the federalist society. Conservatives invented the idea that “judicial activism,” i.e. the practice of judges allowing political beliefs to influence whether federal law was constitutional, was a bad thing. The chimera of “judicial activism” allowed the right to even mount arguments against Warren Court decisions like Brown v. Board by arguing that no matter how we may feel about school desegregation there’s no constitutional argument for taking away state’s rights to administer public education. Now that conservatives have been revealed as judicial activists, the Roberts court has been laying waste to decades of Supreme Court precedent, suddenly you’re hear advocating “well duh, of course judges have biases.” Its just a shame that it took you this long to admit that the “judicial activism” argument was pure politics itself, an attempt to deligitimize decisions that conservatives didn’t like.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

No one has ever claimed justices didn’t have biases. The question has been what they base their decisions on. Judicial activism has always been defined as rulings that go against what the constitution plainly states. Take Wickard v Filburn and a whole host of other rulings during the New Deal era. It’s the progressives from Wilson on that thought the courts should ignore the constitution and grow and evolve with the progressive program.

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Time for an update, Ed. Barry is ordering ICE not to even enforce this law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

cdog0613 on June 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Saw that story as Drudge’s major headline:

Obama and Janet to AZ: F U!!!

Obama is an outlaw as far as the constitution is concerned, and Janet is a spoiled brat because her side lost in court.

I bet she and Obama had today’s DHS move, terminating all 287G agreements with AZ, planned MONTHS ago in case they lost.

fred5678 on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

We are screwed dude, this country is done for, The Constitution was written by old dead white guys and history began with Obama. 44% of the American Public approve of this, therefore we will fall into the abyss of darkness and be in line with Europe where the parasitic, can’t make it on their own classes suck up all revenues and therfore have one socialistic utopia

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

What is THIS???

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

.
Apparently there is a glitch in the Hot Air site software equal to the glitch in the logical reasoning capabilities of the staff.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Arizona should place an indefinite hold on any illegal they discover in coarse of normal police work, until I.C.E. comes to collect them.
If the Feds file come after them again? Oh well. Back to the Supreme Court and in the mean time, the illegals are off the street.

Delsa on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Lib – then I presume you also believe Union’s have no first amendment rights.

Zomcon JEM on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Saw that story as Drudge’s major headline:

Obama and Janet to AZ: F U!!!

Obama is an outlaw as far as the constitution is concerned, and Janet is a spoiled brat because her side lost in court.

I bet she and Obama had today’s DHS move, terminating all 287G agreements with AZ, planned MONTHS ago in case they lost.

fred5678 on June 25, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Yea i just wish we ahd a GOP leader that would do something about it

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Fourthly, if you or any other person doesn’t like what your corporation is doing, you are free to form your own group, pool your resources, and fight back.

Best ideas win, and all.

The Hammer on June 25, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Bbbbut how will liberals get their message out? All they have is Hollywood, every mainstream media outlet, the unions and billionaire liberals like Soros to fund them?

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:33 PM

No one has ever claimed justices didn’t have biases. The question has been what they base their decisions on.

Unfortunately, “empathy” is now considered a legitimate main characteristic for a judge or decision … thanks to the confirmation of the empathetic Latina. Over 3000 years of tradition in Western jurisprudence has been flushed down the drain in so short a time. It is jaw-dropping in its utter stupidity, but that’s what we now have … as “American tradition”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

We are screwed dude, this country is done for, The Constitution was written by old dead white guys and history began with Obama. 44% of the American Public approve of this, therefore we will fall into the abyss of darkness and be in line with Europe where the parasitic, can’t make it on their own classes suck up all revenues and therfore have one socialistic utopia
Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

What is THIS???

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

.
Apparently there is a glitch in the Hot Air site software equal to the glitch in the logical reasoning capabilities of the staff.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Hahahaha. So, if we cut and paste, can we delete and ban libfreestuffordie?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Barry is ordering ICE not to even enforce this law. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

cdog0613 on June 25, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I do not get it. You cannot hold someone unless ICE agrees to act on their case and they say they will only act if you can prove they aleady have a felony conviction? Isn’t suspicion of a felony enough to get a warrant for arrest and hold a US citizen while you gather evidence; especially if they are a flight risk? If you are not a legal resident do you get turned loose until you are convicted in absentia after which you can appeal to ICE to arrest him?

KW64 on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Can’t Brewer call up the State Guard and put them on the Arizona Border and make a national case, making people see what Obama is doing?

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

For the first time I believe this court will uphold O-Care. Scalia’s frustrations over the attack on state sovereignty feels like a warning shot over what he knows is coming Thursday.

Just brace yourself. Hope I’m way off on this…

PA Guy on June 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM

your on target

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Ok, so how does that square with Obama’s blasting the court right after the time of the initial SCOTUS vote on Obamacare? Not saying you’re wrong, though I’m hoping you are.

The Count on June 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I still MUST support Romney.

At least he doesn’t hate the Constitution.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Wish I agreed with you.

Sadly not so.

I was discussing with my father this. Lifetime Republican and LDS. He lived through the Depression.

Point is he fully supports America changing to a Socialist/Communist form of government as long as Romney is President. In his deluded mind this is what GOD wants. Many LDS have a similar belief. Joseph Smith the first Prophet tried Communism twice it did not work of course. My dad grew up as friends with some of the current church leadership.

Mitt Romney was his fathers spokesman when his dad met and met minds with Saul Alinsky. He praised Saul and told all to listen to Saul. Mitt put his fathers face on his 2004 Tour Bus.

So I really doubt Mitt supports the Constitution. I do believe he will tell any lie he thinks will help make him President. I doubt he cares if he gets a second term. One was enough in Mass for him.

I am LDS and this is not Church policy. But trust me many believe it Harry Reid and Mitt Romney get large portions of the LDS vote. Mitt got up to 95%.

Steveangell on June 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Eh…Seriously, Ed?

The quality of HotAir contributions continues to deteriorate.

Norwegian on June 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

For the first time I believe this court will uphold O-Care. Scalia’s frustrations over the attack on state sovereignty feels like a warning shot over what he knows is coming Thursday.

Just brace yourself. Hope I’m way off on this…

PA Guy on June 25, 2012 at 4:16 PM

your on target

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

If I may offer a dissenting, perhaps comforting, opinion. Scalia has much to be frustrated about without tipping his hand on the Obamacare decision. This administration has enacted a clear policy of lawlessness on immigration, and the majority’s decision to further enable the President is absolutely maddening.

We’re all going to go mad before Thursday morning if we keep this kind of micro-parsing up!

poorrichardsnews on June 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

Unfortunately, “empathy” is now considered a legitimate main characteristic for a judge or decision … thanks to the confirmation of the empathetic Latina. Over 3000 years of tradition in Western jurisprudence has been flushed down the drain in so short a time. It is jaw-dropping in its utter stupidity, but that’s what we now have … as “American tradition”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM

And don’t forget the penumbras and emanations from the Constitution. Which year in law school do you learn how to detect and divine the penumbras and emanations from the Constitution?

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM

What a ridiculous post. A judge’s writings in a dissenting opinion being grounds for recusal…..You should have sent this one over to MSNBC.

bluesdoc70 on June 25, 2012 at 4:37 PM

No one has ever claimed justices didn’t have biases. The question has been what they base their decisions on. Judicial activism has always been defined as rulings that go against what the constitution plainly states. Take Wickard v Filburn and a whole host of other rulings during the New Deal era. It’s the progressives from Wilson on that thought the courts should ignore the constitution and grow and evolve with the progressive program.

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:30 PM

.
The Supreme Court rolling back the tide on judicial activism is not judicial activism – it is logically consistent strict constructionism taking the position the Court grieviously erred and that stare decis should not continue to be applied.

Let’s not buy in to the liberals talking points by accepting their Alinsky tactics to redefine positions semantically.

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Ok, so how does that square with Obama’s blasting the court right after the time of the initial SCOTUS vote on Obamacare? Not saying you’re wrong, though I’m hoping you are.

The Count on June 25, 2012 at 4:35 PM

I don’t know, does he know the outcome then, if it was in his favor he still goes out and blasts the Court making it look like he swayed the court with his attacks, making him look like people listen to him?

Or does he know it was thrown out and seriously attacked them?

I’m hoping for the second

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Hahahaha. So, if we cut and paste, can we delete and ban libfreestuffordie?

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:34 PM


Well …

… it would be interesting to see if it worked but you might want to get one of our techies to make sure there is not an embedded id number specific to the username.

Only shoot when you are sure of your target, you know?

PolAgnostic on June 25, 2012 at 4:43 PM

As far as I’m concerned, for a corporation union to have first amendment rights it would have to be demonstrated that every individual in the corporation union agreed with its political activities. Of course, we know that a small number of individuals excercise power over the corporation union (and all the corporation’s union’s employees in ways that make political dissent unpopular). How that entity could be equated with an individual human being before the law is a mystery to me.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM

FIFY

CycloneCDB on June 25, 2012 at 4:44 PM

And don’t forget the penumbras and emanations from the Constitution. Which year in law school do you learn how to detect and divine the penumbras and emanations from the Constitution?

gwelf on June 25, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Evidently, every year. Lawyers can do anything – and should do everything – as we learn as lawyers take control of every industry and dictate to everyone how their businesses should be run. And retarded lawyers, at that. It’s just incredible.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 25, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Justice Scalia seem to be that only one on the Supreme Court that understands the Constitution as written. States have the right to make laws to protect their citizens. The federal government does not have the right to decide which federal laws they will uphold or which they will honor. Prosecutorial desecration only applies to individual cases, not as a blanket coverage of the laws the government does not want to honor. The Federalist Papers give the States the right to make laws if the federal government will not execute the laws for the protection of the State’s citizens. Scalia was right, if States cannot make laws that are constitutional, then they are not sovereign States anymore they are slaves to the federal government. No matter how you cut it illegal does not become legal because the federal government says so. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of political correctness or whims of those that are out to destroy our country.

savage24 on June 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Kagan’s refusal to recuse on Obamacare pretty much puts any future recusal for any reason in serious doubt.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM

. It may take years but I just don’t believe a majority of Americans want to live in Marxist/Socialist system.

d1carter on June 25, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I wish. University communists/socialists used to called “armchair” revolutionaries because they supposedly never got up and did the dirty work of revolution. Funny how these egg heads actually ended up being very effective revolutionaries. Conservatives always thought that the soft sciences were full of blowhards and fools but it turns out that the left was doing a yeoman’s job. Conservatives should have battled harder for academia. Hindsight is 20/20.

So now socialism and identity politics is upper class. Common sense affairs of state like border enforcement(the real oldest profession in the world) are the parlance of uneducated trash. And if Obamacare stands then this is a new world.

BoxHead1 on June 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Arizona should place an indefinite hold on any illegal they discover in coarse of normal police work, until I.C.E. comes to collect them.
If the Feds file come after them again? Oh well. Back to the Supreme Court and in the mean time, the illegals are off the street.

Delsa on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

ICE does not bother to come and collect them — ICE just says “release them” (that’s when ICE even bothers to answer the phone call from AZ LE in the first place). That’s the problem. And AZ can’t hold suspected illegal aliens indefinitely; we have laws here, and unlike Dictator Obama, we still obey the law.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM

Can you say future recusal, boys and girls?

Is Ed auditioning for a regular CNN gig or something?

kevinkristy on June 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The chimera of “judicial activism” allowed the right to even mount arguments against Warren Court decisions like Brown v. Board by arguing that no matter how we may feel about school desegregation …

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Modern liberalism in a nutshell: who needs laws when you have feelings?

Valkyriepundit on June 25, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Justice Scalia is an American citizen with an unparalleled knowledge of the Constitution. He also put his hand on a bible and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He should be commended for standing up and speaking out against tyranny.

Once upon a time Scalia would have been considered a patriot.

BigOil on June 25, 2012 at 4:48 PM

At least if all this stress before Thursday causes a heart
attack, I’m still covered by my private-market insurance… In two years, we’ll get two aspirin and a defibrilator to keep by our chairs…

“Thank you… come again!”

PA Guy on June 25, 2012 at 4:52 PM

And the downward spiral of both content and opinion into mediocrity continues here at HA. King Obama and Napy just told Arizona to drop dead and we have Charlie Rangle up there on top.

If I wanted to read drivel from CNN, I’d I go there.

JPeterman on June 25, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Maybe Scalia is venting because something bigger is bothering him.

livefreerdie on June 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Where we disagree is that a corporation is an individual, especially considering it is made up of many individuals. As far as I’m concerned, for a corporation to have first amendment rights it would have to be demonstrated that every individual in the corporations agreed with its political activities. How that entity could be equated with an individual human being before the law is a mystery to me.
libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:15 PM

It this were true then corporations have no right to freedom of the press and the government can regulate what the NY Times is allowed to print. Dumb libs, never, ever think anything all the way through.

tommyboy on June 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM

One thing you have to give the Democrats: since Byron White, every Democratic nominated Justice has voted as expected. GOP-nominated justices on the other hand:

Eisenhower: Warren and Brennan
Nixon: Blackmum
Ford: Stevens
Reagan: O’Connor and Kennedy
Bush 41: Souter

Had Bush 43 not faced tremendous opposition, Gonzales and Miers’ names might appear above.

Think of the effect those seven justices had on the direction our country has taken.

bw222 on June 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Dear Arizona,
Pack up the illegals and put them on a buss to DC!
Much like what Californica did when releasing prisoners in Nevada a few years ago. Precedent has been set.

mediamime on June 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM

What a great idea! Round them up and ship them out!

Amjean on June 25, 2012 at 5:18 PM

More to the point, though, is the danger of having a Supreme Court justice take a public stance on a public-policy issue that has at least a decent chance of becoming part of a court fight. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and others have already threatened to take Obama to court over the imposition of the DREAM act by executive fiat. Thanks to this public outburst, Scalia has put himself in position for a recusal, since it’s pretty clear that he has a built-in bias on the specific issue. It may have felt satisfying, but in the end the blast will do more damage than good.

You know Ed I might agree with you if we were dealing with a law abiding POTUS but we are not. I might agree with you if Kagan had recused herself from Obamacare but she did not. This POTUS is deliberating trying to destroy the Constitution. He and Soros are going all steam ahead to take advantage of the fact that the Republicans are too afraid to take on Obama because he is black and they are afraid that the black population, that Obama Soros and Co. have been priming the emotional pump on, will riot.

God willing the POTUS elected in Nov will undo all this come January. Scalia is smart he didn’t do this to make himself feel better he did this to raise the issue of an Imperial POTUS to everyone’s attention in a way only a Supreme Court Justice could. Bravo to him for doing so.

CCRWM on June 25, 2012 at 5:22 PM

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 4:21 PM

No, judicial activism is when the justice has a bias and he bends or ignores the Constitution to enact that bias. There is no reason to believe that someone with an opinion can look at something objectively according to a standard, the Constitution. It is the liberal progressive jurists who have exercised judicial activism in legislating from the bench. Conservative jurists, by definition, are beholden to the Constitution.

NOMOBO on June 25, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I still MUST support Romney.

At least he doesn’t hate the Constitution.

PappyD61 on June 25, 2012 at 4:22 PM | Delete

…I know you’ll have to hold your nose…and your breath for that one Pappy…so I thank you for the sentiment.

KOOLAID2 on June 25, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I agree with the idea that this blog post is more irresponsible than Scalia’s comments. Wtf cares what you think Ed? You spout on as if you have an iota of clue about this. Scalia can not be forced to recuse himself, and he will be bashed as a political hack regardless. Why are you out there providing a tool for liberals to say “see, even this HA doosh agrees with us”?? Isn’t that the real question that we should be asking?

SuperBunny on June 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM

“…someone with an opinion can can’t look at something…”

Sorry for the mistake

NOMOBO on June 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM

We are screwed dude, this country is done for, The Constitution was written by old dead white guys and history began with Obama. 44% of the American Public approve of this, therefore we will fall into the abyss of darkness and be in line with Europe where the parasitic, can’t make it on their own classes suck up all revenues and therfore have one socialistic utopia

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

What is THIS???

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Those links are actually in the web page source, and just set to not display on the page, presumably because our logins don’t give us permission to perform those functions. When a moderator is logged in, those links are probably set to display so they can perform the function.

It looks like at least some versions of IE actually copy the text that is set to not display when you cut and paste. Firefox ignores the text when you cut and paste, which seems the more correct behavior.

tom on June 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM

“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforc­ing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia wrote.

Ed, I don’t see where this is a basis for recusal.

Here, in Moonbeam country, our then Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8. Moonbeams refusal did not invalidate the law as written.

One might even say that Moonbeam was in violation of his oath of office.

But since when has that bothered a liberal?

GarandFan on June 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM

the argument Obama used ten days ago in the immigration policy change statement, saying that the White House would prefer to use scarce prosecutorial resources on deporting people engaging in significant criminal activity.

That was the funny thing I noticed when the Friday afternoon decision was announced. Using the money to deport criminals did seem to be what ICE has been doing anyway, with or without a big Obama announcement. He did not say he was going to stop doing that, did he?

I have been away and not seeing the news, so, I could be wrong here, but in the new Obama policy of magical work permits for kids who were here 5 yrs…blah blah blah…and non kids up to 30 yrs. old. Obama did not really say how he would work that exactly.

And you know this gang that can’t shoot straight, could not even quickly figure out how to process their own Cars for Clunkers idea. These young people will never see a work permit while Obama is president, they will still be hoping for it around election time. He can say it, but if you have to wait for people like the people at the motor vehicle place to get it together, it could be a few years before anyone actually had a work permit actually in their hand.

Does anyone know the facts? Do you know any differently?

Fleuries on June 25, 2012 at 5:29 PM

…appellate jurists are supposed to refrain from making specific public comments on matters that may come before the court.

Oh baloney, Ed. Prove it.

woodNfish on June 25, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Couldn’t Justice Scalia be grouchy over that executive order stunt The Won just pulled, after they had made their decision but before it was made public? If Obama had done it earlier than the decision might have gone the other way with Scalia writing for the majority.

Cindy Munford on June 25, 2012 at 5:50 PM

although one could argue that there is an indirect relation.

Ya think?

Can you say future recusal, boys and girls? I knew you could:

Why? It’s entirely applicable to his point… why should he not mention it?

ninjapirate on June 25, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Indeed.

davidk on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Scalia was merely making the valid point that it can hardly be a pre-emption issue when Arizona is trying to enforce U.S. Law that the executive branch is chosing not to enforce. It’s a logical point, and it has nothing to do with the Obumblecare case.

The Reasonable Man on June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM

It this were true then corporations have no right to freedom of the press and the government can regulate what the NY Times is allowed to print. Dumb libs, never, ever think anything all the way through.

tommyboy on June 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I think one of my posts was eaten by the network, so apologies if this is duplicate. But this responds to gwelf and other arguments around free association.

The press is a unique entity in our society, so unique, in fact that its particular privileges are enumerated within the constitution. That should be a clue as to the founders intent. Corporations existed at the founding, newspapers existed at the founding. The Constitution makes a particular allowance for newpspaper organizations which are made up of individuals and *didn’t* make a similar allowance for other corporations.

As for free association, the difference between a corporation and two individuals or even 100 individuals in a voluntary association is that it is possible for two people or even 100 individuals to create a consensus within their organization (or at least a majority) to decide the political message or political contributions of said voluntary group.

A corporation, on the other hand, does not offer all employees an equal stake in deciding the political message of the organisation. Because people can be fired from a corporation in ways that can offer severe consequences for their quality of living, it does not offer all “members” of the corporation an equal say in the political contributions of a given organisation. Instead, the small executive board or even the CEO alone decides the political message for everyone else in the corporation. Its not the same as a group advocacy organization.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Obama’s immigration action would never be accepted by SCOTUS; it’s a political question.

Also Kagan’s e-mails shows what is reasonable construed as rejoice, as well as legitimate inference from other e-mails that makes it seem like she was kept in the loop. Plus, unless they knew of the retirement several months before hand, she was supposedly walled off in January, it went thru (psuedo passed) in March and then after that was nominated to SCOTUS. Collusion? Coicidence? Months difference of the US top litigator of not being involved in something so large?

transparency baby!! he didn’t mention his fingers were crossed behind his back.

John Kettlewell on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Congrats on describing unions!

Disband!

tom daschle concerned on June 25, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The Constitution makes a particular allowance for newpspaper organizations

No, it doesn’t.

What’s more, a corporation is recognized as a “person” for purposes of freedom of speech.

The Reasonable Man on June 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM

corporation, on the other hand, does not offer all employees an equal stake in deciding the political message of the organisation. Because people can be fired from a corporation in ways that can offer severe consequences for their quality of living, it does not offer all “members” of the corporation an equal say in the political contributions of a given organisation. Instead, the small executive board or even the CEO alone decides the political message for everyone else in the corporation. Its not the same as a group advocacy organization.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Lib, I would argue that group advocacy organizations don’t allow the rank-and-file members that luxury either. I seriously doubt that the Sierra Club would allow conservationists the opportunity to make policy, as well as blue-dog Democrats have a chance at writing policy inside the House or Senate.

itsspideyman on June 25, 2012 at 6:23 PM

If public comment is grounds for recusal, what about Ginsburg bagging on the whole Constitution? Shouldn’t that require her recusal from all matters brought before the court?

TheCulturalist on June 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Instead, the small executive board or even the CEO alone decides the political message for everyone else in the corporation.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Making an exception to my rule of not responding to socialist libtrolls…

The “small executive board or even the CEO” — actually the Board of Directors — speak for the owners of the corporation, and what the owners support is all that matters.

Individual stockholders who disagree with the Board can do one of the following…

1. Sell their stock

2. Lobby to replace board members.

Employees have no say in what a corporation does other than that delegated by the owners through the Board of Directors.

I know socialist hate this fact, but then they hate capitalism and free markets.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The Constitution makes a particular allowance for…

Mistake #1: The Constitution does not permit “allowances” for the people. It was created to permit “allowances” for the Federal government. Everything it DIDN’T talk about, was to be left up to the States, or as a given right of the people. For example, the Bill of Rights doesn’t say anything about my right to picnic in my back yard… are we to assume I have no such right because it was not an “allowance” given to me?

it is possible for two people or even 100 individuals to create a consensus within their organization (or at least a majority) to decide the political message or political contributions of said voluntary group.

Yeah, try that on your boss at work some time. “Boss, the group has decided, by a vote of 11-2, that you should be paying for our Starbucks Coffee every morning, that Wednesday’s should now be Hawaiian shirt day, and we should only work half-days on Fridays.” You let me know how that works out for ya.

Those employees, by definition, do not own or run the corporation. They play a limited role as defined by their job description and contract of employment. Unless the contract states they get an equal say in how the company is run, they can pound sand.

Instead, the small executive board or even the CEO alone decides the political message for everyone else in the corporation. Its not the same as a group advocacy organization.

CEO Says: And if you don’t like my message, there’s the door. Your employment here was voluntary and up to my discretion. You don’t tell me how to run my company.

Hootie on June 25, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Son of a… quoting tool worked in reverse. Y’all get the gyst.

Hootie on June 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Scalia’s “outburst” is just him simply calling it as it is.

If the sovereign states were told “Hey, join the union. Cede your sovereignty, then suffer from our capriciousness” the US of A would’ve never happened. He’s 100% correct.

Arizona has to live with a mess from its own borders imposed by Washington while Obummer and the Washington elite do not. Had this been clear from the start AZ would’ve never joined obviously.

Naturally since this is Washington and the Beltway, this qualifies as an outburst. Which is why the country is in the state it’s in.

The ruling like everything else from DC is a cock-up.

Obummer’s “win” is empty. All the demogogery “papers please” b.s. and the ruling was still 9-0.
The locals can still at least prove there’s rampant illegals everywhere, putting pressure on Washington to enforce. Meanwhile, if the D-Rats are driven out of Washington again, one or two federal laws is all it takes to make SB1070 fully legal for good and then some.

And for conservatives the ruling is a disaster for state soverignity and the 10th Amendment. Apparently the whole United States thing is a misnomer. It’s more like United Under Uncle Sam’s Thumb.

smiley on June 25, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Regarding Ed’s update:

Did Scalia write the dissenting opinion? If he did, would reading the opinion publicly be reason to call for his recusal?

hepcat on June 25, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Son of a… quoting tool worked in reverse. Y’all get the gyst.

Hootie on June 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM

I got it.

Socialists hate the fact that employees have no ownership rights in the corporation they work for.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 6:41 PM

We need to remember that Mittens is a Progressive himself. His record as MassGov is not at all good. He may be better than the Kenyan, but the difference between Mittens and Obama is a matter of degree, not kind.

If Mittens wins, which I doubt, he will bear serious watching like any other Prog.

Quartermaster on June 25, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Employees have no say in what a corporation does other than that delegated by the owners through the Board of Directors.

I know socialist hate this fact, but then they hate capitalism and free markets.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Are you saying corporations are fundamentally different than other voluntary organisations who may expous a political belief or contribute to a candidate? EXACTLY the point. The unequal power between the board of directors/owners/CEO and everyday employees means that corporations shouldn’t have the same constitutional rights as individuals as do voluntary associations of two or even 100 EQUALS. That’s precisely my point.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM

The press is a unique entity in our society, so unique, in fact that its particular privileges are enumerated within the constitution.

Yeah, but the Second, they didn’t really mean that one.

Not specifically addressed at you, just libs in general who worship the First while ignoring the Second.

Esthier on June 25, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Lib, I would argue that group advocacy organizations don’t allow the rank-and-file members that luxury either. I seriously doubt that the Sierra Club would allow conservationists the opportunity to make policy, as well as blue-dog Democrats have a chance at writing policy inside the House or Senate.

itsspideyman on June 25, 2012 at 6:23 PM

But are you suggesting that conservationists in the Sierra club don’t believe in the Sierra club’s public advocacy? And, believe me, I’d be thrilled to sacrifice the Sierra clubs ability to donate to candidates if they were disqualified on the same grounds as corporations. I would say that *most* one-issue organizations have the consent of their members on political issues because they are organized around a political issue. But a corporations is a place of work and there should not be a political litmus test for employment. And yet corporations force all of their employees to contribute to a political campaign regardless of whether they believe in that issue. If campaign cash is “speech” than the labor that produces campaign cash is a form of speech to, and workers speech is being coerced.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM

And yet corporations force all of their employees to contribute to a political campaign regardless of whether they believe in that issue.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM

You are full of sh*t. Are you stupid or just ignorant?

Nevermind… you are troll.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Are you saying corporations are fundamentally different than other voluntary organisations who may expous a political belief or contribute to a candidate? EXACTLY the point. The unequal power between the board of directors/owners/CEO and everyday employees means that corporations shouldn’t have the same constitutional rights as individuals as do voluntary associations of two or even 100 EQUALS. That’s precisely my point.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:59 PM

So unions and fees given to political candidates/organizations?

And why does this suddenly change when the organization was built for the express purpose of affecting political change? Are the employees suddenly somehow equal to the owners in these circumstances?

Esthier on June 25, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Scalia is a bad joke. If he wants to be a politician, he should resign from The Court and run for office.

lexhamfox on June 25, 2012 at 7:10 PM

farsighted please identify a corporation who doesn’t rely upon workers for their profits. Therefore, workers contribute to the money that CEOs/boards of directors make to political campaigns.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:11 PM

So unions and fees given to political candidates/organizations?

Union dues should be voluntary.

Are the employees suddenly somehow equal to the owners in these circumstances?

Esthier on June 25, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I do think there’s an argument that an employee who signs up to work for the Sierra Club is significantly more likely to believe in the political message of that organisation. I don’t believe there has to be a 100% consensus before an organization can engage in political speech. But the Sierra Club is so explicitly political the chance that a majority or even a plurarity of their employees don’t support their political endeavors is very unlikely. Ideally, all employers would offer their employees an opportunity to vote on the political speech of their corporations.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:18 PM

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:11 PM

So it is ignorant and stupid.

You have no idea what a corporation is and is not and what employees are and are not. And apparently you are incapable of understanding what a corporation is and is not and what employees are and are not.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Recusal does not matter any more. We have justices who state they consult foreign law, and cultural differences. I wouldnt want any of them on any case I presented, yet there they sit

we have a President who is slectively enforcing immigration law, because he says justice should not be blind in all cases, and yet he sits in office, carefully not enforcing various law, and he was preceded by a serial selective enforcer of the other political party

We have Cities declaring their locales to be free of federal immigration scrutiny, and they all still get federal aid,
while another state attempts to ensure federal immigration law is upheld and that state is neutered by judges other than Scalia

We have quasi military thugs swinging batons outside polling places and they are not questioned but the feds are suing a state trying to keep dead people and non citizens from voting

I would not say ‘future recusal’. Unless he is collecting nickles at the border in return for green cards.

The conservative justice accused Obama of selectively enforcing only those immigration laws that he deems appropriate and said states would never have joined the union if the framers of the Constitution had intended for the executive branch to wield power in such a way.

“The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits,” Scalia wrote.

This statement is hardly a point of recusal. He was making a point of law, and lawlessness. That is not prejudice. That is fact.

The final statement about the delegates to the Grand Convention is not prejudice, but fact, because these delegates clearly proscribed slective enforcement of the law. That is the foundation of the document

entagor on June 25, 2012 at 7:29 PM

This statement is hardly a point of recusal. He was making a point of law, and lawlessness. That is not prejudice. That is fact.

entagor on June 25, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Right. A Justice need not recuse himself for pointing out the obvious, that the President and the Executive are supposed to enforce laws, and that Obama openly announcing he refuses to enforce laws he does not agree with or like is lawlessness — and essentially unconstitutional. The facts speak for themselves.

In fact, it is an open betrayal of Obama’s oath of office and grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

The failure of courts and legislatures to challenge such actions by a head of state is how republics die and become fascist dictatorships.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 7:40 PM

How that entity could be equated with an individual human being before the law is a mystery to me.

libfreeordie

2+2 is a mystery to you.

In the meantime, keep molesting that chicken.

xblade on June 25, 2012 at 8:15 PM

But are you suggesting that conservationists in the Sierra club don’t believe in the Sierra club’s public advocacy? And, believe me, I’d be thrilled to sacrifice the Sierra clubs ability to donate to candidates if they were disqualified on the same grounds as corporations. I would say that *most* one-issue organizations have the consent of their members on political issues because they are organized around a political issue. But a corporations is a place of work and there should not be a political litmus test for employment. And yet corporations force all of their employees to contribute to a political campaign regardless of whether they believe in that issue. If campaign cash is “speech” than the labor that produces campaign cash is a form of speech to, and workers speech is being coerced.

libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

You’re driving a truck through your argument with your “most” quote. Furthermore, when you attempt to separate corporate groups from political groups, you walk a dangerous line.

I know of no organizations that force their employees to contribute to a political campaign other than unions.

itsspideyman on June 25, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I am really starting to worry about Ed. He really is close to going over to the dark side.

Sporty1946 on June 25, 2012 at 9:18 PM

The press is a unique entity in our society, so unique, in fact that its particular privileges are enumerated within the constitution. That should be a clue as to the founders intent. Corporations existed at the founding, newspapers existed at the founding.
libfreeordie on June 25, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Absolute nonsense. Freedom of the press is just the written version of freedom of speech. It applies to the free distribution of pamphlets just as much as it does newspapers. (ie: see “The Federalist Papers”.) Freedom of press and speech are in the same sentence of the first amendment and corporations are there given no more rights in that sentence with regard to freedom of the press than they are with regard to freedom of speech. Please try reading the text. If corps don’t have freedom of speech then they don’t have freedom of the press – the amendment can’t be read any other way.

The Constitution makes a particular allowance for newpspaper organizations which are made up of individuals and *didn’t* make a similar allowance for other corporations.

LOL. What utter bs. The constitution never even mentions “newspaper organisations” and certainly makes no “particular allowance” for them. Do just make this stuff up as you go along? Please cite a single case or any authority other than your own imagination to back up a single assertion you’ve made.

tommyboy on June 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Is Ed auditioning for a regular CNN gig or something?

kevinkristy on June 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM


Ed Morrissey is CNN..
.

This is CNN’s vain attempt to bolster their ratings…

Mcguyver on June 25, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Status quo R’s do what Ed did today…

Gohawgs on June 25, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Do just make this stuff up as you go along?

tommyboy on June 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Yes, it does. It has no idea what it is talking about. Not a clue.

farsighted on June 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Screw it, Ed, if the libs all pat each other on the back when one of their own does something inappropriate as a “statement” then why should we care about a little thing like this? And besides, Scalia’s right, let’s not lose sight of that. Liberals claim this case is about something else, but it isn’t. It’s about exactly one thing–allowing illegal immigrants to slip across the border unchallenged. We need to make this country come to grips with that simple truth and support those who, like Scalia, oppose the libs’ attempts to destroy the country just to further their own power.

R. Waher on June 26, 2012 at 12:10 AM

R. Waher on June 26, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Amen brother. Until Republicans/conservatives recognize that immigration is the most important policy deciding the fate of our party and country, we will continue to lose battles against the left. Democrats are happily importing a new electorate that could care less about limited government and the Constitution but Republicans are too stupid or too greedy to recognize the demise of their own country. Borders, language, and culture trump ideology. Our free market, individualist ideology means nothing to the hordes of third worlders pouring in for a government handout.

Jerry Bear on June 26, 2012 at 12:22 AM

The Ban Hammer revealed!

We are screwed dude, this country is done for, The Constitution was written by old dead white guys and history began with Obama. 44% of the American Public approve of this, therefore we will fall into the abyss of darkness and be in line with Europe where the parasitic, can’t make it on their own classes suck up all revenues and therfore have one socialistic utopia

Conservative4ev on June 25, 2012 at 4:13 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

What is THIS???

CherryBombsBigBrownBeaver on June 25, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Those links are actually in the web page source, and just set to not display on the page, presumably because our logins don’t give us permission to perform those functions. When a moderator is logged in, those links are probably set to display so they can perform the function.

It looks like at least some versions of IE actually copy the text that is set to not display when you cut and paste. Firefox ignores the text when you cut and paste, which seems the more correct behavior.

tom on June 25, 2012 at 5:28 PM

BoxHead1 on June 26, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Arizona should place an indefinite hold on any illegal they discover in coarse of normal police work, until I.C.E. comes to collect them.
If the Feds file come after them again? Oh well. Back to the Supreme Court and in the mean time, the illegals are off the street.

Delsa on June 25, 2012 at 4:32 PM

ICE does not bother to come and collect them — ICE just says “release them” (that’s when ICE even bothers to answer the phone call from AZ LE in the first place). That’s the problem. And AZ can’t hold suspected illegal aliens indefinitely; we have laws here, and unlike Dictator Obama, we still obey the law.

AZCoyote on June 25, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I doubt they will be using this law much. The lawsuits will be raining down on AZ and they are going to bleed cash… the police hate it.

lexhamfox on June 26, 2012 at 3:48 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3