Supreme Court's Arizona Immigration Decision: Bad Or Disastrous?
Print Friendly and PDF
The LA Times reports:
The Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Arizona’s tough immigration law gave both sides an opportunity to celebrate, criticize and, inevitably, point fingers. Above all, it underscored the tricky politics surrounding the emotional issue — for both parties — especially in the midst of a fiercely fought presidential campaign.

President Obama offered qualified praise for the ruling, saying he was pleased the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Arizona law, including parts that would have made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work or fail to carry proper documentation.

But Obama, like many Latino activists, expressed concern the court upheld perhaps the most controversial portion of the state crackdown, a provision allowing police officers, making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people who they suspect may be in the country illegally.

But that sounds more like the Best Case Scenario.

A commenter recently pointed out that there's no good reason for the Supreme Court to be based in Washington D.C. What, they don't have email these days? They have to go look up precedents in paper files only available in D.C.?

The Justices (other than Clarence Thomas, who loves RVing around the country) just get encapsulated in the D.C. Bubble. In particular, Washington D.C. based folks are a generation behind most of the rest of the country in understanding the impact of illegal immigration. White people in D.C. are all for it because, deep down, they see it as a way to push blacks out of D.C.

Either move the Supreme Court permanently to, say, Kansas City, or make it move around the country every couple of years.

Print Friendly and PDF