It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
[Updated at 10:01 a.m. ET] We have a ruling on the juvenile justice case, which involves the question of whether a 14-year-old can be sentenced to life without the change for parole, Bill Mears reports. It involved two kids, aged 14. In both cases the court has reversed the earlier ruling, ruling in favor of the underage children, saying they should have a chance to argue for for parole someday. It was a 6-3 ruling.
[Updated at 10:07 a.m. ET] One case down. But the big question still remains:
[Updated at 10:08 a.m. ET] The court has overthrown a Montana state ruling on state elections, which essentially means it is upholding Citizens United, and ruling that Supreme Court case applies to state elections as well. The court will not hear oral arguments on the case.
[Updated at 10:15 a.m. ET] We now have a ruling in the Arizona immigration case law. The law was upheld in parts and struck down in others. We are now reading to see which parts have been upheld and which parts have been struck down by the Supreme Court. Stay tuned.
[Updated at 10:18 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law. This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona.
Just keep diminishing those state rights. This is the direction we're going. Sooner or later the states are going to have had enough. EDIT TO ADD: Where is the line drawn? As a nation do we have a definitive line that the Federal Government can't cross any more. Is there a consensus on this? This is what the states need to start discussing.
Originally posted by Covertblack
[Updated at 10:18 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law. This is a win for the federal government and a loss for Arizona.
Chalk up a loss for state rights. Once again the government plays big brother.
[Updated at 10:26 a.m. ET] The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally. The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.