Breaking News Events

[UofMfan]

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivered Split Ruling

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivered Split Ruling

Be prepared for more conservative decisions, including upholding DOMA, if Obama loses, Ginsberg retires and Romney appoints another right/winger!

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

Be prepared for more conservative decisions, including upholding DOMA, if Obama loses, Ginsberg retires and Romney appoints another right/winger!

Did I misunderstand the ruling? Allergies are messing with my brain cells today.

Seems to me the only part of the radical Arizona law that was let stand is a police officer can ask about immigration status and report such to federal immigration. They cant arrest them for their status, they cant detain them, they can only report them. It is up to the feds to decide what to do.

For the rest, the court upheld that Arizona cannot impose its own immigration policy. That federal immigration law cannot be subverted by the states.

So, how does essentially maintaining the status quo make for a conservative decision?

[LeftWriteFemme]

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Did I misunderstand the ruling? Allergies are messing with my brain cells today.

Seems to me the only part of the radical Arizona law that was let stand is a police officer can ask about immigration status and report such to federal immigration. They cant arrest them for their status, they cant detain them, they can only report them. It is up to the feds to decide what to do.

For the rest, the court upheld that Arizona cannot impose its own immigration policy. That federal immigration law cannot be subverted by the states.

So, how does essentially maintaining the status quo make for a conservative decision?

Hi Kobi,

I may be wrong but based on the portion they upheld, they are still allowing police officers to ask for "papers please" to what, prove if they are not legal immigrants? Then they get to check with the Feds?

How about probable cause to stop them in the first place? Asking for papers, to me, smacks of a police state.

I could be wrong but that's what I read when I read your link. If I am incorrect in how I read "papers please" (and of course the police will say please); then mea culpa.

"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision.

Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.
Monday's decision on "papers please" -- Section 2(B) in S.B. 1070 -- rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization.

The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released."

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

Hi Kobi,

I may be wrong but based on the portion they upheld, they are still allowing police officers to ask for "papers please" to what, prove if they are not legal immigrants? Then they get to check with the Feds?

How about probable cause to stop them in the first place? Asking for papers, to me, smacks of a police state.

I could be wrong but that's what I read when I read your link. If I am incorrect in how I read "papers please" (and of course the police will say please); then mea culpa.

"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision in the Obama administration's challenge to Arizona's aggressive immigration law, striking multiple provisions but upholding the "papers please" provision.

Civil rights groups argue the latter measure, a centerpiece of S.B. 1070, invites racial profiling.
Monday's decision on "papers please" -- Section 2(B) in S.B. 1070 -- rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization.

The provision that was upheld -- at least for now -- also commands police to check all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before they are released."

Ok, I hear you now. But, I am not sure my fuzzy brain is seeing it in quite the same way.

It seems to me, police checking peoples immigration status, has become commonplace around these parts i.e. New England.

I have known people in Rhode Island, who were deported after they were found to be driving without a license. They were stopped for a traffic violation, no license, check immigration database, call immigration, immigration makes decision to hold or release, pursue deportation or let it go.

The newspapers here on the Cape ran a series of articles back when Arizona enacted their law, focusing on how police routinely checked on immigration status on people they stopped, arrested, and/or charged with a crime. They could not stop them just to ask for immigration status but once stopped they could pursue this. Apparently the police have access to the immigration database system and check it routinely. The police here cannot not hold you for immigration violations. They can only report it to immigration and immigration has to decide whether the person gets held and transferred to their custody for the immigration issue. Police here were ticked off that they would call immigration only to be told thanks but we arent interested.

Under homeland security, a lot of questionable stuff has become customary and routine. We sanctioned a police state the moment the Patriot Act was signed.

So, the provision left untouched, really seems like a hollow conservative victory to me. But, I can be naive like that. Just seems to me, Arizona is not going to be wanting to foot the huge bill for doing these checks on a widespread basis, when in reality, their hands are tied. It is still immigrations ballgame.

Be interesting to read up on the potential implications of the decision as more and more pundits weigh in on it.
---------
Might have to disregard this entire post. Just realized I tried to inflict logic in relation to potential governmental behavior and bigotry. Silly me.

[Soon]

Teen lesbian couple found shot in Texas park

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Teen lesbian couple found shot in Texas park

This makes my heart ache.

[Blade]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Teen lesbian couple found shot in Texas park

this is messed up...breaks my heart. I am anxious to hear the rest of the story. The results of the investigation, please

[Kobi]

Arizona began implementing the piece of its anti-illegal immigration law that survived the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, requiring police officers to verify immigration status during routine stops if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that someone may be in the country illegally.

Arizona tells police officers to look for specific signs that indicate they should ask for immigration papers when stopping a person. These signals include lack of a license, driving a car with foreign plates, difficulty speaking English and seeming nervous. Officers must be careful not to stop someone for more than a "reasonable" amount of time while verifying his or her status, however, or the inquiry could violate the stopped person's rights. Gov. Jan Brewer says officers have been trained not to racially profile while implementing the new law.

But Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor told the Los Angeles Times he worries his department will be flooded by lawsuits from people who say they were improperly questioned about their status, or held for too long. Under the law, Villasenor estimates that Tucson will make 50,000 additional calls to the federal government each year to verify status. Officers will have to hold people whom they would usually just cite and let go while they verify immigration statuses, he added.

These extra calls will present "operational challenges," an Obama administration official who declined to be named told reporters on Monday. But the federal government has no plans to change how it operates in any way due to the law, he added. "We will not allow a state to dictate our priorities," the official said.

When an Arizona police officer calls to verify a suspect's immigration status, the federal government will decide to hold someone only if the person has committed serious crimes or is a recent or repeat border crosser. An Arizona officer will be forced to let that person go if the federal government doesn't want him or her and if the officer doesn't have a crime to charge the person with.

In a rebuke to Arizona, the Obama administration also ended an agreement Monday that allowed some specially trained local police in the state to enforce immigration laws.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...154346200.html

----------------------------


Anya, you were right. The nightmare begins in Arizona.

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Arizona began implementing the piece of its anti-illegal immigration law that survived the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday, requiring police officers to verify immigration status during routine stops if they have a "reasonable" suspicion that someone may be in the country illegally.

Arizona tells police officers to look for specific signs that indicate they should ask for immigration papers when stopping a person. These signals include lack of a license, driving a car with foreign plates, difficulty speaking English and seeming nervous. Officers must be careful not to stop someone for more than a "reasonable" amount of time while verifying his or her status, however, or the inquiry could violate the stopped person's rights. Gov. Jan Brewer says officers have been trained not to racially profile while implementing the new law.

But Tucson police Chief Roberto Villasenor told the Los Angeles Times he worries his department will be flooded by lawsuits from people who say they were improperly questioned about their status, or held for too long. Under the law, Villasenor estimates that Tucson will make 50,000 additional calls to the federal government each year to verify status. Officers will have to hold people whom they would usually just cite and let go while they verify immigration statuses, he added.

These extra calls will present "operational challenges," an Obama administration official who declined to be named told reporters on Monday. But the federal government has no plans to change how it operates in any way due to the law, he added. "We will not allow a state to dictate our priorities," the official said.

When an Arizona police officer calls to verify a suspect's immigration status, the federal government will decide to hold someone only if the person has committed serious crimes or is a recent or repeat border crosser. An Arizona officer will be forced to let that person

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...154346200.html

----------------------------


Anya, you were right. The nightmare begins in Arizona.

Oh how wrong I wished I had been.

Some may call me pragmatic, some may call me a cynic but unfortunately, I saw this a mile away.

Absolutely nothing surprises me anymore about this country.

Aaron Sorkin's new show Newsroom on HBO Sunday night had some profoundly sad statistics about the USA, compared to other countries:

We are #7 in literacy
#7 in math
#22 in science
#49 in life expectancy
#178 in infant mortality
#4 in exports
#4 in labor force

However, we are #1 in the number of incarcerated citizens per capita
#1 in the number of adults that believe angels are real

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Teen lesbian couple found shot in Texas park

I'm so angry about this. Here is a page where you can do something no matter where you are. Maybe we can let them know our community will not be quiet about this. They were just too young.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Supreme Court upholds health care lawBy Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer
Updated at 11:55 a.m. ET: In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is “increasing taxes” on those who choose to go uninsured.

Poll: Do you agree with Supreme Court ruling on health care law?

Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS blog breaks down the Supreme Court's ruling on health care. Also, when asked why Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the law, Goldstein said, "I think he believed it."


The 2010 law, the Affordable Care Act, requires non-exempted individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

The essence of Roberts’s ruling was:

• “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote.

• “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.”

• But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

Click here for Twitter reactions to the ruling

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court upholds President Obama's national health-care insurance act. NBC's Pete Williams reports. TODAY's Matt Lauer discusses the ruling with NBC's Savannah Guthrie and David Gregory, host of "Meet the Press."


The law, Roberts wrote, “makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”


Jason Reed / Reuters

A sharply divided Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the centerpiece of Obama's signature healthcare overhaul law that requires that most Americans get insurance by 2014 or pay a financial penalty.
He said “The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a ‘fairly possible’ one.”

He said the Supreme Court precedent is that “every reasonable construction” of a law passed by Congress “must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality.”

Dems cheer high court as galvanized GOP vows 'full repeal'

Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein told NBC’s Pete Williams that “the Affordable Care Act was saved by Chief Justice John Roberts.”

Goldstein said the Obama administration “got the one vote they really needed in Chief Justice John Roberts.”

When he served in the Senate in 2005, Obama voted against confirming Roberts as chief justice, arguing that he lacked empathy for underdogs and “he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.”

(Twenty-one other Democratic senators, including Joe Biden, also voted against confirming Roberts. Twenty-two Democratic senators voted to confirm him.)

The four justices joining Roberts in upholding the law were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The dissenting justices were Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

For individuals who choose to not comply with the individual insurance mandate, Congress deliberately chose to make the penalty fairly weak: only $95 for 2014; $325 for 2015; and $695 in 2016.

After 2016, that $695 amount is indexed to the consumer price index.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.




Chief Justice Roberts announces the Supreme Court's opinion in health care law
NBC's Pete Williams reported that Roberts reasoned that “there’s no real compulsion here” since those who do not pay the penalty for not having insurance can’t be sent to jail. “This is one of the scenarios that administration officials had considered that if the court did this they would consider it a big victory,” Williams said.

But in a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote.

“A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

Congress cannot “penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said.

The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans -- but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose

[*Anya*]

I am beyond floored that this conservative Supreme Court upheld the Healthcare law!!

I am speechless.

Yes, I know this is surprising (me speechless and all) but I am personally very happy about this!

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

Teen lesbian couple found shot in Texas park

When will it stop?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

I am beyond floored that this conservative Supreme Court upheld the Healthcare law!!

I am speechless.

Yes, I know this is surprising (me speechless and all) but I am personally very happy about this!

Surprised me as well.

Have mixed feelings about the implications of the decision tho. On the one hand, it is a tremendous victory for the health care for all and especially for women.

On the other hand, I am fearful it will escalate the attacks on womens reproductive rights and womens sexuality in general.

From the Center for Reproductive rights: "Not surprisingly, the opponents of reproductive rights are furious about today's decision. The anti-choice group Americans United for Life just launched an alert rallying their supporters to "sustain the attack against tax-payer funded abortion." They've created the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act"—which eight states have already used to block insurance plans currently covering abortion from receiving federal funding in their state exchanges."

Sigh.

[Hollylane]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Surprised me as well.

Have mixed feelings about the implications of the decision tho. On the one hand, it is a tremendous victory for the health care for all and especially for women.

On the other hand, I am fearful it will escalate the attacks on womens reproductive rights and womens sexuality in general.

From the Center for Reproductive rights: "Not surprisingly, the opponents of reproductive rights are furious about today's decision. The anti-choice group Americans United for Life just launched an alert rallying their supporters to "sustain the attack against tax-payer funded abortion." They've created the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act"—which eight states have already used to block insurance plans currently covering abortion from receiving federal funding in their state exchanges."

Sigh.

Vomit. That is the word that came to mind, but the sound I uttered while reading that alert was more like...Phfttt!!!

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Surprised me as well.

Have mixed feelings about the implications of the decision tho. On the one hand, it is a tremendous victory for the health care for all and especially for women.

On the other hand, I am fearful it will escalate the attacks on womens reproductive rights and womens sexuality in general.

From the Center for Reproductive rights: "Not surprisingly, the opponents of reproductive rights are furious about today's decision. The anti-choice group Americans United for Life just launched an alert rallying their supporters to "sustain the attack against tax-payer funded abortion." They've created the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act"—which eight states have already used to block insurance plans currently covering abortion from receiving federal funding in their state exchanges."

Sigh.

What scares me the most are the young women of pregnancy age in the USA that have no memory of what it was like when abortion was illegal and unsafe abortions were the only way to terminate, unless they had money and could find a licensed physician willing to perform a "D&C".

Of course there are countries in the world where there is not access to legal abortions and/or due to stigma, even if abortion is legal, do not seek them.

Some sobering facts below:

There are over 1.7 billion young people aged 10-24 in the world (PRB 2006).

This is the largest population of young people in history. Their sociocultural environment and circumstances are changing, which can affect the likelihood of unwanted pregnancy and abortion:

• Girls are reaching puberty earlier now than in previous decades (WHO et al. 2006).

• Due to global efforts to broaden opportunities for young women, many are now staying in school longer, migrating further away from their birth place, entering the workforce in larger numbers and marrying later.

• Pregnancy and motherhood outside of marriage are stigmatized in many societies, which may cause young, unmarried pregnant women to seek abortion. Other reasons that are independent of marital status include a desire to continue education; an unsupportive or absent partner; inadequate resources; the pregnancy resulted from violence or abuse; health risks; or the woman does not want to become a mother at that time, or at all.

There are many social, economic, logistical, policy and health system barriers to safe abortion care for young women, including:
stigma and negative attitudes, fear of negative repercussions, lack of access to comprehensive sexuality education, limited financial resources, cost of care, transportation, involvement laws and concerns over privacy and confidentiality.

http://www.ipas.org/~/media/Files/Ip.../ACYTKE11.ashx

Almost two dozen states in the USA have passed or are considering, laws that would make birth control and abortion harder to access. And results of a recent national poll kicked up even more dust.

The Gallup Poll suggests that the percentage of Americans who call themselves "pro-choice" is at its lowest point since the survey first asked in 1995.

Back then, 56% identified as "pro-choice" and 33% as "pro-life." Today, more than half of those surveyed say they are "pro-life," and only 41% claim to be "pro-choice."

The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be outlawed has remained steady for years at around 20%.

But more than half of those polled this year pronounced abortion "morally wrong."

Planned Parenthood's Serena Josel blames semantics: "The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' are such packed shorthand.

"They work in the political sphere to put people in categories. But these are intensely personal issues," she said. "Those labels don't leave much room for the complicated realities of people's lives."

The young women that Josel works with "have concerns that go beyond abortion, to contraception access, cancer screenings, healthcare they can trust and afford," she said.

"A lot of them see themselves as pro-life and pro-choice. They would never choose in their lives to have an abortion. But they don't think it's right to restrict someone else's choice."

The movement has to engage those women. That's where sharing stories comes in.

Our recollections are a way to educate a generation that can't imagine being ashamed to ask for a pregnancy test just because there is no wedding ring.

Young women have grown up in California with the expectation of reproductive freedom — with mothers who put them on the pill at 16 and drugstore access to the morning-after Plan B. There are so many ways to not get pregnant, some see abortion as a consequence of carelessness, rather than a reprieve from misfortune.

Our values might match, but our language differs: They don't recognize the shorthand Roe vs. Wade.

Choice to them translates to consumer options, like whole milk or soy with that latte.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun...nks-20120602/2

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Surprised me as well.

Have mixed feelings about the implications of the decision tho. On the one hand, it is a tremendous victory for the health care for all and especially for women.

On the other hand, I am fearful it will escalate the attacks on womens reproductive rights and womens sexuality in general.

From the Center for Reproductive rights: "Not surprisingly, the opponents of reproductive rights are furious about today's decision. The anti-choice group Americans United for Life just launched an alert rallying their supporters to "sustain the attack against tax-payer funded abortion." They've created the "Federal Abortion-Mandate Opt-Out Act"—which eight states have already used to block insurance plans currently covering abortion from receiving federal funding in their state exchanges."

Sigh.

I am concerned over the portion of the decision concerning Medicaid too- most certainly can have an adverse effect on women overall.

The Teavangelical-publicans will continue the attacks on reproductive rights no matter what, however, I agree that this is going to be more fuel on the fire.

Oh, and I wonder if Rush Limbaugh is going to make good on his promise to move to Costa Rica if the SC did not find the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. Just shows how sure the idiot was that it would be deemed so.

Have to share this-

[Prudence]

I dont like the supreme courts decission.. I think it has found a loop hole in what apears to me a movement almost toward dictatorship. Im sure the taxation point was argured quite well on the floor of the supreme court and it won out. Ok .. so we can be taxed.. got it.. how about if at the end of the year.. the medical community has to turn over its billing to the federal govenment(see where this is still going) so that each who files income tax is matched up to that list to see if they have any outstanding medical bills .. if they do then tax them....Either way the federal govenment is "dictating" something as individual as your privite health care issues.. be it from the consumer or the provider.. They want that informantion. If this is truly upheld.. you will find that there will be limits then placed on procedures and recovery times for indivuals, services will be cut, it will eventually be that you will have to go through a governmental process to see if your condition is even worth addressing by the health care community. They will be dictating what meds can be dispensed .. at what cost and rate.. because they can only tax a certian precentage Heath care is not a one size fits all. I do understand that privite insurance will still exsit.. until it doesnt. The most basic of human instint is survival..What would you do for a person who is standing over you holding the very pill that would enable you to take your next breath. Its a wolf in sheeps clothing yall.