Partial victory. The irony is that the Supreme Court upheld the very part of the law that Obama and Holder bitched about.
From Big Government:
In a 5-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself), the Supreme Court has struck down the form–but not the substance–of the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070. The opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy held that immigration law–including the decision not to enforce the law–is an exclusive area of federal jurisdiction. However, the Court also held–unanimously–that it is not unconstitutional to ask people to produce proof that they are legally in the United States, once they are stopped for another valid reason.
The result is that Arizona’s law survives–in a very narrow sense. The state can use its law enforcement officers to catch illegal immigrants–but not according to a state law designed to fill the gap in federal enforcement.
Politically, the decision is both a win and a loss for the Obama administration. It is a win because much of the Arizona law will not survive, while the grievance that animated Democrats’ opposition to the law–the process of asking people to produce proof that they are legally in the country–remains, and can be used again and again to motivate voters, particularly Latino voters, in the Obama campaign’s divide-and-conquer election strategy.
It is a loss for largely the same reason: the Obama administration’s extraordinary assault on Arizona–which included appeals to the United Nations–has failed to achieve the desired substantive result. It may mobilize some Latino voters, but it has riled up voters (Latino and otherwise) who believe the federal government lacks the will to enforce the rule of law.
The Court, tactly, has left but one option for the millions of voters upset with the government’s immigration failures: namely, to vote the nation’s chief executive out of office.
From Fox News
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but it upheld for now a key provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of those they suspect may be in the country illegally.
The provision on mandatory checks during routine stops will now kick back to a lower court for review and still could still be subject to challenge. The rest of the ruling, though, definitively strikes down three other provisions in the Arizona law.
Those provisions had made it a crime for immigrants to seek employment without work permits and to not carry their immigration papers, and they had allowed police to arrest anyone they suspect committed a deportable offense. Without the latter provision, the requirement to conduct routine immigration checks has little enforcement power behind it.
The court was unanimous in allowing the immigration checks to go forward, but divided on the rest. The decision now throws into question how other states that had followed Arizona’s lead on immigration enforcement will proceed.
The decision also prompted a range of reactions from officials in Washington and Arizona.
“This is a bit of a mixed bag,” Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., told Fox News.
……Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who put out an optimistic statement Monday, indicating the state would move to carry out the remaining law, even without the three other planks.
Brewer hailed the decision as a “victory for the rule of law” — in reference to the one provision that was upheld. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution,” Brewer said.
Read the ruling HERE.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio on the ruling:
“It shows cops can ask someone if they’re here illegally when you stop them for another crime,” Mr. Arpaio said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. He added, however, that “you like to get everything.”
It allows Arizona’s “show me your papers” requirement for the time being, but illegals have to be stopped in a commission of a crime; such as a traffic violation. They’re felons, regardless. They should be arrested on the fucking spot.
So if illegals in Arizona don’t need to show a valid permit for employment, or carry proof of legal residence, when the hell does the federal government plan on enforcing those provisions outlined in Title 8 USC sections 1324 and 1325?
Because those statutes expressly forbid foreigners from being in this country without proper documentation. Period.
Mitt Romney weighs in:
Mitt Romney on Monday said states have a duty and a right to secure their borders even as he called for a bipartisan national immigration strategy.
……”This represents yet another broken promise by this president. I believe that each state has the duty — and the right — to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities,” Romney said in a written statement released before he left Salt Lake City to fly to a planned fundraiser in Arizona.
The other two provisions will be reviewed by a lower court. Great.
What this means is that 2/3rds of the Arizona law was invalidated due to conflict with federal immigration laws, which incidently, the federal government refuses to enforce. In the meantime, Congress has to act in order to pass legislation that allows the states to enforce their own immigration laws and more states are waiting in line to argue their immigration cases before the SCOTUS.
It also means that American voters have to rid the government of the DemLeft assholes in Congress and the White House, who think of the Constitution and Federal statutes as nothing more than toilet paper.