As we anticipated, the United States Supreme Court has reversed and upheld the Ninth Circuit in part in the immigration case. Most parts — Sections 3, 5, and 6 — are preempted. In this case, Justice Kagan recused herself and the opinion is written by Justice Kennedy. Both sides can claim some victory, though the Administration can claim the invalidation of most of the law. Yet, the most controversial provision remains unpreempted.

Only the provisions requiring a check of papers is found not to be preempted. The Court is fractured on the aspects with multiple opinions with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each filing opinions. However, Kennedy carries the day. He simply rejects the claims of cooperation in enforcing sections like section 6:

In defense of §6, Arizona notes a federal statute permit­ ting state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” 8 U. S. C. §1357(g)(10)(B). There may be some ambiguity as to what constitutes cooperation under the federal law; but no coherent understanding of the term would incorporate the unilateral decision of state officers to arrest an alien for being removable absent any request, approval, or other instruction from the Federal Government.

The majority expresses sympathy with Arizona but ultimately little support:

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thought­ ful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have under­ standable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

Yet, most of the attention of the public was focused on the “show me your papers” part of the law that requires state and local police to perform roadside immigration checks of people they’ve stopped or detained. This is the “reasonable suspicion” and will continue — though the Court cautions that it must be used with restraint.

The invalidation of the other provisions does not bode well for states and cities in passing a host of laws involving illegal immigrants. Ruled preempted are is (1) Section 3 making it a state crime to be here illegally; (2) Section 5(C) making it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or working in the state and (3) Section 6 allowing state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country when they have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense.

Here is the opinion: 11-182b5e1


  1. Really, this is a National Sovereignty question, not a state rights question.
    The states abrogated both that responsibility and that power when they joined the national union.

    It was a correct decision in terms of international law.

  2. The civil war is over guys.

    Stop burning those books.

    If the decision had been the other way it would have caused confusion and made it much more difficult to have a comprehensive, coordinated solution.

  3. This throws Arizona to the wolves essentially. The President has stated that he intends to not enforce immigration law, and now Arizona, a state suffering from an onslaught of illegal immigration, is not allowed to enforce immigration law themselves.

  4. “Weird. The “papers please” part of the law was, to me, *clearly* in conflict with the fourth amendment. ”

    It was also the part of the law that many Arizona police chiefs were most against as it seems like a very difficult part of the law for their officers to enforce without racial profiling, and also puts investigations at risk, (The law explicitly says it doesn’t have to be enforced on a case by case basis if it puts investigations at risk, but the overall fear of that section of the law will still put investigations at risk.)

    But I agree, I would’ve thought other portions of the law would be found constitutional sooner that the papers please clause.

  5. Kind of thought that the law enforcement officers asking for your papers, to see if your legal or not, was infringing on the rights of not providing self incriminating evidence.

  6. “Does this mean I have to carry my birth certificate if I go to Arizona?”

    Long form only please if you visit Uncle Joe’s territory in Maricopa County.

  7. Neil, Obama has record deportations and he is lax? Are you from AZ Neil? I am. Grew up there and go back every spring. Have family there, brothers and sisters there. Over the last few years I have seen a visible decrease in the latino population. As for my brothers and sisters? They are American citizens, born here. It disgusts me that I have to watch the police roll up on them as they are taking my nephews and nieces to the park at the end of the block. Funny thing though, if I take my nephews and nieces to the park the police just go on by. I wonder why? My brothers and sisters, as American Citizens, have the same right as I do to walk to the park. The thing that people who make comments like you seem to forget is that these crazy laws that AZ passes in it’s crazy legislature, have an affect on HUMAN BEINGS. Who somehow are all scary to you because they are not a white middle aged male.

  8. Well, of all the states, I think it is important for Arizona to have much tighter borders because I am terribly saddened to read every September the count of how many people fathers, mothers, children, and usually over a hundred, died in the desert over the spring and summer.

    I am also upset with the terrible conditions they live in once they get here, with dozens or even a hundred or more found in tiny drophouses with little food, water, or air conditioning. It’s inhumane, unsanitary, and promotes human trafficking.

    The car accidents that result trucks and vans overturning on freeways with dozens of people not belted in are horrific.

    And Paul Krugman reminds me that since I want a strong safety net with single payer health care in the United States, I cannot promote open borders.

    Finally, the illegal migration north is terrible on the environment and will scar the desert and alter vegetation and river flows with discarded pollution for literally hundreds of years. (google illegal immigrants san jose river).

    I understand that many people that do not live here mainly consider concerns like this to be racism when expressed in Arizona, athough the same people would most likely be concerned with human trafficking, environmental degradation, and deaths in their backyards if it happened in their ticky tacky little neighborhoods. These same people while demanding open borders also probably are furious that the Supreme Court looks likely to turn down the individual mandate.


    Deaths on AZ Border since Oct. 1, 2011

    Since October 1, 2011, the remains of 94 migrants have been recovered in Arizona border counties, according to the Coalición de Derechos Humanos.

    In recent years, the annual number of recovered remains has been consistently high, with approximately half recovered in summertime.

    Year Total (Oct.–Sept.) Summer (June–Sept.) Source
    2010–2011 183 90 49% Coalición de Derechos Humanos
    2009–2010 253 123 49% Coalición de Derechos Humanos
    2008–2009 217 112 52% Arizona Daily Star Border Deaths
    2007–2008 186 94 51% Arizona Daily Star Border Deaths
    2006–2007 242 125 52% Arizona Daily Star Border Deaths
    2005–2006 223 111 50% Arizona Daily Star Border Deaths
    2004–2005 282 149 53% Coalición de Derechos Humanos

    When large numbers of people are dying in remote wilderness conditions, the number of bodies recovered gives an indication, but only an indication, of the true loss of life.

    The main source of information about recovered remains is medical examiners’ offices. The Arizona data is compiled by the Coalición de Derechos Humanos. The Arizona Daily Star also maintains a Border Deaths Database, organized by calendar year.

    Both sources report data provided by medical examiners for the four Arizona border counties: Pima County, Santa Cruz County, Yuma County, and Cochise County. The majority of the Arizona deaths occur in Pima County.

    Not all the dead are identified. On trends in the number of unidentified bodies, see this press release from the Coalición de Derechos Humanos.

  10. Leaving the “paper’s please” portion of S.B. 1070 will lead to more lawsuits, if racial profiling can be proven, and concomitantly, more monies from local coffers if such lawsuits are successful. Just another “opportunity” for folks to make money off a stupid law.

  11. DallysDad, I’m not from AZ and I didn’t know that Obama had deported people in record numbers. Thanks for the info. Sorry if I offended you. Contrary to what you said, I like Hispanics and don’t find them scary. My favorite is Manuela Arbelaez. I suppose I’m a little jealous because of all the red tape and bureaucracy my Canadian wife and I are having to endure, trying to get her into the U.S. legally. I wish she could just come over without obeying the law. However, after dealing with fees, paperwork, lost paperwork, and long wait, I can understand why people come over illegally.

  12. bettykath – depends, I’d go with the paper bag rule. Are you a lighter or a darker tone than a grocery bag?

  13. How would a LEO base his decision if not on appearance? Ant then that is profiling?
    Your papers? One step closer to CCCP. And what papers are accepted in the whole of the USA? Is there a law backing this which ones will do?

  14. I’m descended from 17th century western Europeans. No one would mistake me for anything else unless I wore a burka. Guess I get a pass. And isn’t that racial profiling?

  15. “How would a LEO base his decision if not on appearance? Ant then that is profiling?”

    The authors of the bill claim it’s possible….

    I’ll give you one example.

    I don’t have to notice that you are brown to ask for your papers if I notice that the person you are sitting next to is brown. See, so I’m not profiling you, I am looking at other aspects of the context you find yourself in.

    Does that help?

  16. “How would a LEO base his decision….”

    The smart cops will just avoid this still questioned portion of 1070 that remains. There are plenty of other law violations that will keep them busy enough, especially with the reduction of police officer numbers because of budget cuts.

  17. The only way to get around racial profiling is to have everyone provide “papers” or to ask no one for “papers”. I don’t see any other way around it. See Dallysdad’s experience.

  18. I’m not so much into draconian measures to deal with symptoms. I’d much rather go after the root cause. Repeal NAFTA and GATT and much of the problem will disappear on its own.

  19. If a police officer stops someone for a traffic violation and asks for license and registration and the person hands them a consular id card, perhaps that might be enough to wonder if the person was in the country illegally.

  20. Anon and others,

    BettyKath answers it pretty well. Whitey gets a pass, That also is profiling. As for the guy I’m sitting hext to—he’s carrying. So my rectum gets examined too? ANON? Great logic.

    As for GATT, in Geneva I banged a couple of times (had sexual intercourse if you prefer) the daughter of the chief architect in ’67. She used to slum at the Bar Commerce. Exclusiveness does not exclude sluttiness.
    Is that why our politics are so bad?

  21. I have tried to leave a new comment about Vance v. Rumsfeld the site will not post or is there a wiretap on this site???

  22. bettykath 1, June 25, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Does this mean I have to carry my birth certificate if I go to Arizona?
    Depends on your skin color, the bumper stickers on your vehicle, and whether or not the cop stopping you says your taillight is out.

  23. The reason the “papers please” section (1 of 4) was not cast down is that it has not been implemented yet (it has not taken effect), and the challenge was an “one the face of it” challenge.

    The court does not like facial challenges as to constitutionality, rather they like “as applied” challenges.

    Since you can’t determine how a law will be applied until it takes effect, that decision is upcoming.

    I say it is going down too.

  24. “”The President has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so,” said Scalia. “But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

  25. woody voinche 1, June 25, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    I have tried to leave a new comment about Vance v. Rumsfeld the site will not post or is there a wiretap on this site???

    NSA has is a wiretap on all sites.

    Moderation kicks in if you have more than two links in your post and if you use certain words. I think there are 4 or 5 words. Most folks here can figure out the outlawed words if you spell them funny, like with $@$% character. Just get a letter or two right. Somehow those forbidden words aren’t so offensive when they aren’t spelled out. We get to vent w/o so much offense.

  26. This is a GREAT victory for illegal aliens, foreign terrorists, and drug dealers, allowing them free movement in and out of the US without having to be hampered by government regulations that nobody pays attention to anyway. Isn’t America great or what?

  27. The city limits of this blog are determine by its rules.

    The city limits of the are determined by Arizona, so sez again and again.

    There aren’t any published laws to back up …

    So bloggers here like anon and Frankly, do the Arizona and try to define parameters to gain the favor of other bully worshipers (e.g. bdaman).

    That is why many people do not like The City Limits of Their-topia

    They are so “Maggie’s Farm” out on Highway 61:

    Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
    Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
    God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
    God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
    The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
    Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
    God says, “Out on Highway 61”

    The names have been changed to protect the rule makers who want to make all of the rules as they go.

    Like Mitt’s RULE 1: “I did not say whatever I said.”

  28. The “papers please” portion of the statute may be subject to further judicial review once it has been implemented. I am waiting to see how the State of Arizona figures it can enforce that provision without unlawful profiling. My guess is that it can’t.

  29. Scalia is an ass if he thinks Arizona is not breathing a huge sigh of relief with the Dream Act kids getting a blessing & some breathing space from President Obama.

    My niece is a school teacher who has seen terrible things: a top engineering student not being able to accept a full scholarship because ‘no papers’.
    Another top student who could not go to college in Mexico as planned (her Aunt teaches at this college) because right now, sending a child to Chihuahua is like sending them into a war zone.
    Now working crappy part time jobs as an ‘illegal’, taking some community college classes, anything she can afford all the while trying to stay out fo the radar of any policeman.

    These students have never known Mexico, have never lived there, and if you want to send them to Mexico, you are sending them into a war zone that is more dangerous than Afghanistan.

  30. Betty Kath,

    Try coming to a new language and country and learning the relative strengths of cuss words. In Sweden, fan, the devil (also djävul) is very strong. To call an elder woman “kärring” is very offensive, although it
    was accepted once upon a time and means only old
    Remember when a frenchman says “merde” it is only he who knows where and when it is acceptable.

    Not to mention kids who come home with as yet unvalued four letter words. Quslle choc!!!

  31. Shano,
    That’s certainly true in Tucson. My friend there say so.
    Her family spent some time south of the border in the same area as Willards grandpa did before he sold out anc came home. Some didnät learn much there.

  32. idealist, I kept thinking that all undocumented Mexicans in America should just claim amnesty until the end of the War on Drugs.

    When our own government was sending down semi automatic weapons to fuel this war, why should any Mexican leave the US to go into a war zone? Why not give them refugee status?

  33. Shano,

    I’ll buy it right now. Really.
    Go and report and get registered as refugee, get ID card, get right to ER care, food stamps, and limited (?) right to work. And you pay taxes. Citizenship after 7 years. No repatriation requirements.

    All caught at the border will be shot and buried in unhallowed ground with black steel crosses and
    sombreros marking the spots.

  34. It appears to me that SCOTUS didn’t endorse ethnic profiling in salvaging the “show me your papers” provision. The Court said it didn’t know enough about its implementation to rule on its constitutionality. That’s not a free pass; that’s a cautious test to see if Arizona will exercise good faith in checking immigration status. If it doesn’t, the Court will likely kick it out as well. All the Court has unwittingly done is to energize Latinos against the ultra-rightwing in the next election and that all can’t be bad can it? There’s a reason that all Romney will say is that it’s Obama’s mess.

  35. I mean for crying out loud, they are here, they have been here, and will probably stay here, and import their relatives, etc.

    Let’s get their problem on the table, stabilized, and behind us. Then we can go on mining the border so we can hear the coyotes and badgers and peccaries getting blown up. And the a–holes who run around with camouflage pants and jackets, can dare each other to see how close they dare go near it. All between drinks of hooch.

    Stupidity, thy limits know no bounds.

    Somebody first mentioned the San Jose, and changed it to the San Pedro river. Only spitting distance from wher my army base was/is. AS long as it has pools you won’t die of thirst.

  36. Messpo,

    I’m always hanging myself up on words and the things they MAY hide.

    You say ultra-right as an enemy of the hispanics.
    Well, that’s awfully generous of you to exclude the rest of the right wing.

    In my mind all the right wing consists of “haves” who don’t intend to share a dime with the hispanics, or any other ones they regard as needies.

    So, the choice is much simpler. Every thing with an R on it is an enemy incarnate.

  37. Regarding questions (rhetorical, no doubt) about what other than race might be used to determine whether someone is in the country legally, I answered a similar question about the time the bill was passed:

    A person (or 300) is found to have used forged documents to get a job at Ranch Market; a u-haul truck is pulled over for a traffic violation, the driver leaves the scene and there are 67 people riding in the back; people are being held hostage by human smugglers because they haven’t paid their fee to those smugglers.

    All three examples are from news stories at about the time the bill was passed. And, to me, all three situations would raise a reasonable suspicion that the people involved are not here legally.

    Granted, in each case one might want a bit more information (e.g., an admission from 1 of the 67 as to the fact that he was being smuggled into the county, which would cast suspicion on the other 66, or several of the 67 giving conflicting accounts as to why they were in the truck or what they know about the driver).

  38. SwM,

    Scalia’s proclivity to ridicule has long been noted. Underlying all his ridicule and trivializing is some very notable hostility.

    The older he gets, the worse he gets.

  39. Idealist:

    personally, I am all for people being able to freely go to whatever country they want and engaging in any type of work they are qualified for, the more the better.

    More people working in America means a bigger pie for all to share.

  40. Messpo,

    Indeed, and it is stupid. Some of my worst enemies are Repugs. Gotcha.
    But true. But summarizing enemies under one flag is not a fault found on only one side.

    I thought this especially true when you got a lot ot flak the other day for your support of the drone program—particularly as some thought you were indiscriminately targeting anybody in Swat valley (yes that is its name). Presence meant terrorist meant target, as I recall you said or were accused of saying.

    So was a bit suspicious that you were now suppressing saying “UNFORTUNATELY the hispanics have been awakened by this……”.

    And whether killing with drones on suspicion based on paid informers (have we heard of them before feeding just the nuclear fuel to start the Iraq war) is well-grounded is another argument for another time.

    Thanks for your succinct reply.
    Pithy, but hardly an argument.

  41. Bron,

    They are here. That’s a fact. We are not keeping them out according to others. And we are wasting money and effort on Border cops needed for schools. So deal with it already.

    Every problem is an opportunity, someone said.
    Either build an Israel border, and bear the shame or do the right thing. The world is not going to change until we legitimize soft drugs—-and
    neither alcohol or nicotine are soft. Both kill.

  42. How about we re-negotiate NAFTA to include a living wage and environmental protections? Because the slave labor maquiladoras on our border are what they are fleeing from. They will die if they work there too long, so they risk their lives to cross the border and come here.
    After all, Tyson, et al are tempting them to come work in the USA.

    And it affects the US. The pollution from these slave labor factories is showing up on the beaches in San Diego. Heavy metals from battery factories etc.

    When I lived in Mexico the obvious solutions were two: end the War on Drugs and re-negotiate NAFTA to ‘Fair Trade’.

    The fact that Neo Liberalism has failed spectacularly in Mexico is obvious.

  43. When I lived in Mexico the obvious solutions were two: end the War on Drugs and re-negotiate NAFTA to ‘Fair Trade’.

    The fact that Neo Liberalism has failed spectacularly in Mexico is obvious.

    I’d back both efforts, but we get lawmakers to agree, and I still don’t see many Democratic lawmakers that believe in Fair Trade (most liberal economists still only vaguely lean towards it, even my hero Paul Krugman will endorse a carbon tax, but not a Fair Trade tax) and of course the Republicans mainly are interested only in gutting wages for employers.

    In the meantime, once again, Paul Krugman says we can’t have strong safety nets with open borders.

    Think about that when you consider today’s Supreme Court ruling.

  44. Saturday Night Live skit: The whole nine get off the plane at Tucson
    Airport. The city cops are at the curb watching for immigrants leaving the terminal. They give Thomas the nod. Breyer and Kennedy look ok. Ginsberg gets some questions but the Brooklyn accent gives her a pass. Sotomayer and Scalia are demanded to show papers. They let Kagan go by after a good look over. Sotomayer is put into the Mex catagory and Scalia into the Italian mafia grouping. Finally the cops lament and let them go. One cop is shaking his head saying that the second one, Breyer, looked “extraterrestrial”. “Yeah, there are aliens and then there are aliens.”
    “Yeah, specially when they say they just got off a plane from New York.”

  45. Read this little dittie from the dissent of Justice Scalia:

    As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to ex­
    clude persons from its territory, subject only to those
    limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitution­
    ally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long
    been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de
    Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations
    “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory
    either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,
    or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur-
    poses, according as he may think it advantageous to
    the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not
    flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every
    one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and
    whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed
    to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II,
    ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds.
    See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon Internation­
    al Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maxim
    of International Law that, the Government of a State may
    prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).1
    There is no doubt that “before the adoption of the consti­
    tution of the United States” each State had the author-
    ity to “prevent [itself] from being burdened by an influx of
    persons.” Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132–
    133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States
    of that authority. To the contrary, two of the Constitu­
    tion’s provisions were designed to enable the States to
    prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other
    States.” Letter from James Madison to Edmund Randolph
    (Aug. 27, 1782), in 1 The Writings of James Madison 226
    (1900); accord, The Federalist No. 42, pp. 269–271 (C.
    Rossiter ed. 1961) (J. Madison). The Articles of Confederation had provided that “the free inhabitants of each of
    these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from jus­
    tice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and im­
    munities of free citizens in the several States.” Articles of
    Confederation, Art. IV. This meant that an unwelcome
    alien could obtain all the rights of a citizen of one State
    simply by first becoming an inhabitant of another. To
    remedy this, the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities
    Clause provided that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be
    entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
    several States.” Art. IV, §2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). But
    if one State had particularly lax citizenship standards, it
    might still serve as a gateway for the entry of “obnoxious
    aliens” into other States. This problem was solved “by
    authorizing the general government to establish a uniform
    rule of naturalization throughout the United States.” The
    Federalist No. 42, supra, at 271; see Art. I, §8, cl. 4. In
    other words, the naturalization power was given to Con­
    gress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they
    did not want, but to vindicate it.

    Now what in the world is he talking about:

    Vattel’s work deal with nation states and international law, not political subdivisions thereof. Scalia must have missed Book 1§4 where a “sovereign” is defined as, “Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.”

    Sound like Arizona to you? Imagine Arizona having he right to refuse entry into it’s territory of the Prime Minister of Canada. How about refusing the right of citizens from neighboring states from buying lottery tickets in Arizona.

    Scalia is really getting wacky.

  46. The last guy says that Scalia is getting wacky. Show me your papers Antonio. If you are a WOP then you must go to jail here in AZ until we can clear up your citizenship. You talk funny to us desert guys out here in Tucson. You don sound like New York to me Antonio. Hold your hands out. We’re cuffin ya.

  47. Very good, Mespo. The states of the U.S.A. are not sovereign. They are not nations. The U.S.A. is a sovereign nation.
    A lot of folks hate to hear that, but citizens of individual states are U.S.A. citizens, first. They have U.S. Constitutional rights that states may not abrogate.
    We already discussed this in the 1860s, and again, in the 1960s (Civil Rights movement). Discussion about state sovereignty is over. Only dinosaurs like Scalia are still going on about it.

  48. GeneH would be welcome here to dissect and put labels on Scalia’s bad logic, assuming it is bad.

    But let me attempt:

    “We” think that the Constitution (?) says that the matter could not be demonstrably solved at state level, so we revert the right to define to the national level, ie Congress.

    Scali thinks that because the ruling did not expressly take away the power from the states, that the power is then still theirs to exercise.

    Did I do it?

  49. “Sound like Arizona to you? Imagine Arizona having he right to refuse entry into it’s territory of the Prime Minister of Canada. How about refusing the right of citizens from neighboring states from buying lottery tickets in Arizona.”

    Q: What if the person had agricultural products, could Arizona then deny entry?

  50. Another “lots of states vs. the federales” case was decided today.

    In Coalition for Responsible Reg v. EPA various states sued the EPA over regulations concerning carbon dioxide and other green house gases:

    We begin with a brief primer on greenhouse gases. As their name suggests, when released into the atmosphere, these gases act “like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 505. A wide variety of modern human activities result in greenhouse gas emissions; cars, power plants, and industrial sites all release significant amounts of these heat-trapping gases. In recent decades “[a] well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of [greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere.” Id. at 504-05. Many scientists believe that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are driving this climate change. These scientists predict that global climate change will cause a host of deleterious consequences, including drought, increasingly severe weather events, and rising sea levels.

    It was in the District of Columbia Federal Court of Appeals, before Sentelle, Rogers, and Tatel, JJ.

  51. OTOTOT

    Today it rained, two times, so hard that it sounded like standing on the tarmac and listening to a jet take off. Haven’t seen equal since the tropics. Weather bureau says rainiest summer (40 days so far) since 100 years. No let up in sight. King and queen slumming the fabodas in Brazil, her native land (50%). Hope it rains on them.

    According to agro sources, Stockholm is not a good farming zone due to lack of Spring/Summer rains. Ha!

  52. Abby Jensen @Arizona_Abby writes:

    “Calling sec. 2(B) of AZ’s #SB1070 the “show me your papers” law is no longer justified after today’s SCOTUS decision. With the provisions making it a crime to fail to carry immigration “papers” or to work without legal documentation now thrown out by SCOTUS, police *can’t* stop someone merely to investigate their immigration status, i.e., to ask them to “show me your papers.” Also, only drivers, not passengers, pedestrians or any one else, are required by Arizona law to produce ID when stopped by police. In other words, no one is required to “show their papers” unless they’re driving a car, and then the only requirement is to show their driver’s license or provide other evidence of their name, address, etc.

    Also, the constitution only allows police to stop & detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion the person has committed a crime. After today, that no longer includes the former crimes of being in Arizona without proper immigration documentation. So, Arizona citizens can only be stopped if police have reason to believe they committed some other crime or traffic violation; they *can’t* be stopped just to ask for their “papers.” Once they are stopped, police can’t detain them to investigate their immigration status for any longer than it takes to investigate the reason for the stop. Once that investigation is complete, the police must release the person or, if they have probable cause, arrest them.

    Finally, everyone who is stopped by the police in Arizona should know that they have no duty to cooperate with the police or answer their questions (unless they were stopped while driving, in which case they must provide their license or other ID). However, it *is* a crime to lie to the police or hinder an investigation (other than by refusing to answer questions). So don’t lie or interfere with the police, just exercise your right to remain silent (which you have whether the police tell you about it or not). Finally, keep asking the police if you can leave; once they say you’re free to go, take the police at their word & leave & refuse to answer any further questions. Too many people end up convicting themselves by answering questions they are now required to answer.”

    I feel much better now, so, is she right? Does it stop the ‘papers please’?

  53. You recognize therefore considerably relating to this topic, produced me for my part believe it from numerous numerous angles. Its like women and men are not involved until it’s something to do with Girl gaga! Your personal stuffs great. All the time deal with it up!

Comments are closed.