Supreme Court hears Oral Arguments in Arizona Immigration Case

I believe the Court will rule against the government in both the health care case and the immigration case.  Wishful thinking? maybe.  It is not reliable to try to predict the outcome of the case from the questions asked by the Justices during oral argument but it seemed to me that they seemed to be wary of the Solicitor General's arguments in both cases.  I also believe Paul Clement did an exceptional job in both cases.  I also believe that we may benefit from having only 8 Justices on the Arizona case.  Justice Elena Kagen is not participating in the Arizona case.

It is worth noting that the cases that come to the Supreme Court are not simple cases.  They typically involve original and complex questions that may take the Constitution to places that it has not previously gone and may sometimes change previous paths of precedent because of a slightly different fact pattern.  

If you believe, as I do, that the Constitution is a document of limitation on the scope of federal government authority then the ObamaCare case is of vital importance.  The so called elastic clauses in the constitution (reasonable and proper clause and commerce clause) have been stretched beyond all recognition and have created a federal government with no limits at all.  The mandate that persons must buy health insurance and that it must be from sources approved by the government is not acceptable to me - and I hope the Court will agree.  And, by the way, if the mandate falls, I believe the entire law should fall.  It was the universal mandate that was promised to insurance companies to obtain promises of additional coverages such as pre-existing conditions coverage.  Also, I believe the usual severability language does not appear in the ObamaCare bill.  I do not want my government telling me I have to buy an electric car from Government Motors - or what kind of light bulbs are approved or what kind of toilet I must install.  The government is picking winners and users in our economy - possibly with an eye to paying back campaign contributors or unions.  It is wrong and corrupt in my view.  The ObamaCare legislation exceeds the authority that exists in the Constitution, I believe.  Incidentally, I might not object to state legislation that was similar.  I would have to view the circumstances and the State Constitution in that case.

The Arizona case is different.  I believe that immigration policy is logically placed in the hands of the Federal Government (one of the few functions I think belongs there.)  But where the Federal government has refused to act - and the results are ruinous to the individual States - something must be done.  Governor Brewer in Arizona, it seems to me, has carefullly crafted legislation that does not interfere with the Federal rules - but that enable the State and  local law enforcement agencies to take part in solving the problems.  They do not present different criteria for immigration policies but they facilitate the enforcement of the Federal rules.  We are a federal system with various responsibilities among the tiers of government.  But the failure of the Federal government to protect the State of Arizona along it's international border does not relieve the State of Arizona from their responsibility to protect the health, safety and morals of the State.  State sovereignty may need to be recognized along with doctrines of federal pre-emption.  Justice Scalia commented in his questioning during oral argument that there are Federal laws against robbing a national bank.  There are also state laws prohibiting bank robbery.  Nobody has argued that the enforcement of the state laws interfers with federal enforcement action.  

I believe that in the face of the lack of effective action by the feds to protect Arizona and to control illegal immigration it is unconscionable for the DOJ to sue the State of Arizona.  I hope the Supreme Court agrees with me.

One thing I can tell you, Mike - we will know the results of both cases before the end of the current Court term in June.  Although it is possible there could be new questions not covered in briefs and arguments where the case could be set for additional argument in the next term - I do not expect that in these cases.  

Thanks for stopping by.

John - I appreciate your local view as you are closer to events than I.  I was not aware of Senator Pearce and his local recall election.  Most of the national attention is focused on the June recall election of Governor Walker in Wisconsin.  

I have been a fan of Sheriff Arpaio.  He has been a blunt speaker of truth for a long time.

I welcome two types of dissent on my posts.  First I welcome those who disagree with me if they present a rational argument that can be discussed.  Second, and you seem to be in this group, I welcome those who agree with me but want to correct my facts.  You know I won't hear the truth from the media ! So thank you for your expertise in your local political environment.  I may learn something here, if I am not careful. 

Thanks, John for stopping by.