Arizona Immigration Law on Supreme Court Docket

Shades of the Obamacare hearing, even the mainstream media is conceding that the administration had another bad day at the Supreme Court. Today the high court heard arguments about the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, and apparently all the justices including the liberals were skeptical of the federal government's position.

“It seems to me the  federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

It appears likely that at least part of the Arizona's illegal immigration crackdown will be upheld.

Judge Napolitano discusses the legal issues involved in this video:

Liberals Were For Judicial Activism Before They Were Against It

After ObamaCare fared poorly in last week's Supreme Court hearing, the sanctimonious left-wing media echo chamber is campaigning to intimidate the Supreme Court into going along with the unconstitutional, one-size-fits-all individual mandate.

(Separately, while no one knows how the Court will rule, some liberals are putting out the pathetic nonsense that the individual mandate's demise would help Obama's reelection.)

The left is even sounding a lot like Newt Gingrich, astutely observes The Wall Street Journal:

After last week's Supreme Court argument on ObamaCare, the political left seems to be suffering a nervous breakdown...The High Court's very "legitimacy" will be in question, as one editorial put it—a view repeated across the liberal commentariat...

Overturn any part of the law, the Justices are being told, and your reputations will be trashed. The invitations from Harvard and other precincts of the liberal establishment will dry up. And, by the way, you'll show you hate sick people—as if the Court's job is to determine health-care policy.

This is the left's echo of Newt Gingrich's threat earlier in the primary season to haul judges before Congress when it dislikes their rulings. Remember the political outrage over that one?

No doubt the Justices will ignore this transparent attempt at political intimidation, but someone should defend them against the claim that overturning the law would be "judicial activism." It's more accurate to say that failing to overturn the mandate would be dodging their duty to uphold core constitutional principles.

Gingrich took a lot of flak from both sides when he floated the idea of compelling judges by subpoena to explain some of their off-the-wall decisions. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't judges be accountable--at least to the extent of public testimony?

To some degree, we have the same question about sports officials. Why can't a coach or player criticize a referee or umpire's call without getting hit with hefty fines? After all, there is no shortage of incompetent, outcome--effecting officiating in the pro leagues.It's the officiating, not the comments, that go to the heart of the integrity of the game.

What's more, why do sports broadcasters--including outspoken former players--rush to to pronounce every action by an official as a "good call." Do these broadcasters sign a blood oath of some sort to alibi for the "zebras"?

Supreme Court Decision is Victory for Religious Liberty

Civil libertarians, including those who aren't religious at all, or perhaps even atheists, would likely applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision that protects religious liberty/religious freedom under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

While employers sometimes act in arbitrary (or worse) ways, that does not justify meddling by equally arbitrary (or worse) government bureaucrats, especially given widespread joblessness and economic dislocation.

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Under this amendment, federal appeals courts have traditionally recognized a "ministerial exception" that in general exempts religious institutions from employment laws. In Hosanna-Tabor vs. EEOC, the high court formally validated this exception.

In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on [January 11] for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

In the 9-0 decision that completed rejected the position taken by Obama administration lawyers, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in part:

Requiring a church to accept or retainan unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governanceof the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the Free Exercise Clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions...

The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important.But so too is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission. When a minister who has been fired sues her church alleging that her termination was discriminatory, the First Amendment has struck the balance for us. The church must be free to choose those who will guide it on its way.

This assertion by the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a fitting description of  all the radical, overreaching regulators that have infested this administration.

The extreme position taken by the Obama Justice Department in the Hosanna-Tabor case is a reflection of ideologically-based hiring. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department has chosen to hire only liberal lawyers, not moderates or conservatives, for key Justice Department posts that are supposed to be non-political career appointments. Although many experienced lawyers are out of work in the current economic slump, the Obama Justice Department has hired many liberals who have no real-world legal experience, rather than hiring based on merit.

Supreme Court To Review Arizona Immigration Law

Instead of securing the border and enforcing immigration law, the Obama administration would rather use its resources to file lawsuits against states that want to get serious about enforcement when the federal government won't do it's job. Similarly, rather than rooting out vote fraud, the U.S. Justice Department wants to make vote fraud easier.

Do you see a trend here?

It's almost as if DOJ lawyers decided to emulate Seinfeld's George Costanza by doing the opposite of what is rational--except that Costanza's reversal made sense in the context of the show!

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Arizona's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling that blocked the state's immigration measure. Justice Kagan has recused herself from the case, as she should also do in the upcoming Obamacare appeal.



The expectation is that the High Court will allow at least part of the Arizona law to go into effect, but time will tell.

In the meantime, there are reports that the administration will draw down the token number of National Guard troops at the border.

Obamacare Headed to Supreme Court Sooner Rather than Later

In what could be a risky political and legal strategy, the Obama administration has decided against requesting an en banc hearing at the Eleventh Circuit that would have reconsidered a ruling that earlier declared healthcare reform, so called, unconstitutional. This is a departure from the delaying tactics that the administration previously employed.

The constitutionality of the 2010 health care law could be determined by the Supreme Court this term, with a decision coming next summer in the thick of the 2012 presidential campaign. The Justice Department said Monday that it had decided not to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta to take up the case. A three-member panel of the court decided 2-1 last month that Congress overstepped its authority in passing the Affordable Care Act, which requires virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance.

The vast majority of the American people oppose socialized medicine in the guise of Obamacare. The legal machinery often moves slowly, but a High Court decision (which will probably go 5-4 either way) that upholds Obamacare before the 2012 election could bring out even more voters opposed to the one-size-fits-all mandate. It's also hard to see how a loss at the Court would help the president's reelection prospects either.

Last week, in declaring the law unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge Christopher Connor of Pennsylvania (a Bush appointee) determined that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting Obamacare. "Conner concluded that Congress cannot compel individual citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of citizenship. He reasoned that the authority to regulate interstate commerce does not list the ability to order a lifetime financial commitment to buy health insurance." Recently, a three-judge panel at the Fourth Circuit (three of whom were Democrats, two appointed by Obama) dismissed an Obamacare challenge for technical reasons, but without ruling on the merits of the case.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court resolves the conflicting decisions, Obamacare has already failed in its stated mission to bring down costs as Investors Business Daily reports:

Until now, many of the fears about ObamaCare have been theoretical. But this year's 9% spike in premiums is concrete evidence of the substantial harm it's already doing to our health care system.As soon as the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual report on insurance premiums was released, ObamaCare defenders dismissed its most troubling finding: Insurance premiums for family coverage shot up an average $1,482 this year.

As far as the effect on the upcoming general election, Prof. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection echoes (but much more eloquently) our feelings stated above:

If the Supreme Court finds the mandate to be unconstitutional, it will deflate Obama’s presidency. In one fell swoop, the entirety of Obama’s agenda will come crashing down. It will be a political and personal humiliation.

If the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, Obama will be able to crow a little, but such a decision will leave the majority of people who hate the law with but one alternative: Throw Obama and Senate Democrats out in November 2012.

A pro-Obamacare ruling prior to the election will motivate the Republican base like nothing else, and will bring the independents along. If you thought the summer of 2009 was hot, just wait until the summer of 2012 if the only way for the nation to get out from under Obamacare is at the ballot box in November.

Supremes Reject Gitmo Prisoners' Appeal

The detainee lobby loses one at the high court:

The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it rejected an appeal by four former Guantanamo Bay prisoners arguing that they should be able to proceed with their lawsuit against top Pentagon officials for torture and religious abuse.

The justices refused to review a U.S. appeals court ruling that dismissed the lawsuit by the four British citizens over their treatment at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba on the grounds the officials enjoyed immunity.

...The Obama administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. It said the appeals court's decision was correct and that further review of the case was unwarranted.