The justices say Arizona’s immigration law has nothing to do with race—except when it pleases them.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that when the chief justice of
the U.S. Supreme Court tells the U.S. solicitor general in the opening
seconds of his presentation that “No part of your argument has to do
with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?,” we will not be hearing a
case about racial profiling. That is especially true when the solicitor
general agrees. Never mind that a significant amount of the discussion
over the constitutionality of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, the infamous state
immigration law, ends up poring over both racial profiling and Fourth
Amendment law. But you can forget that; those issues are not before the
court today.
Among the provisions of the controversial law that was copied by five other states
and enjoined by a federal appeals court last year is the “papers
please” provision requiring state police to check the legal status of
anyone stopped lawfully but who they believe to be in the country
illegally. It does lead one to wonder what kinds of thin, pretextual
stops might worry a Supreme Court justice. The case recycles last
month’s leading Supreme Court advocates in the health care cases, with
Paul Clement returning for his role as the Reasonable States-Rights Guy,
and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli reprising his role of Sober
Gentleman Advocate From Another Era, which at this moment in Roberts
Court history feels like a guy who brings a butter dish to a gunfight.
Verrilli looks like he wants to be any place but listening to Justice
Antonin Scalia—the justice most likely to be pulled over for impersonating a paid Fox News contributor—analogizing
the right to demand papers of suspected illegal immigrants to the
Framers’ guarantee that the states’ rights to police their own borders
included “inspecting incoming shipments to exclude diseased material.”
Read on...
Read on...
No comments:
Post a Comment