iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Elise Foley
GET UPDATES FROM Elise:

Arizona Immigration Law's Supreme Court Hearing Leaves Democrats Less Confident

Posted: 04/25/2012 2:06 pm Updated: 04/25/2012 2:10 pm

Arizona Immigration Law
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) await the arrival of President Barack Obama on Jan. 12, 2011.

WASHINGTON -- Two top Democratic opponents of Arizona immigration law SB 1070 said Wednesday they were less confident that contested provisions of the law would remain blocked after a Supreme Court oral argument.

"I kind of felt better going in than I did coming out of the court," Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told HuffPost after listening to the oral argument. "You couldn't get a good read."

Grijalva said Section 2 of SB 1070, which requires police to ask for papers during stops if they suspect someone to be in the country illegally, seemed the most likely to be unblocked by the Supreme Court, based on the intense questioning by the justices. A federal court blocked that section of the immigration law, as well as three others, in a decision upheld by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in April 2011. The law was signed in 2010 by Gov. Jan Brewer (R), but those provisions have not gone into effect.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), also a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, told HuffPost he also felt less encouraged because Republican-appointed members of the court seemed to take a partisan stance on the issue.

"If you were there to see the sarcasm dripping from [Justice Antonin] Scalia's mouth as he spoke -- I thought they were on the Republican bench on the Judiciary Committee," he said, referring to the House committee with immigration hardliners Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Steve King (R-Iowa) and Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.).

The other side was more confident. Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach, an author of SB 1070 and an informal adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said he felt "very confident" that the arrest provisions in Section 2 would be unblocked.

Kobach said the court spent the least time discussing Section 5 of the law, which criminalizes the act of seeking employment by undocumented immigrants. He said the justices' view on that component was the most unclear, although he still believed they would unblock the provision and allow it to go into effect.

Former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce (R), who co-wrote and introduced the law, echoed that statement.

"The only one that even left any doubt was the employer [provision]," he told HuffPost. "I think we'll win, the others were just clearer."

Even if the justices unblock the contested sections of SB 1070, Gutierrez said there may be political means to stop it. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced on Tuesday he will introduce a bill that would ban states from creating their own immigration enforcement legislation, should the court rule in favor of Arizona.

"You can't win in this Supreme Court. You better start learning that you better win in the court of public opinion and on election day," Gutierrez said. "That's what these arguments taught me today."

FOLLOW POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Two top Democratic opponents of Arizona immigration law SB 1070 said Wednesday they were less confident that contested provisions of the law would remain blocked after a Supreme Court or...
WASHINGTON -- Two top Democratic opponents of Arizona immigration law SB 1070 said Wednesday they were less confident that contested provisions of the law would remain blocked after a Supreme Court or...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,396
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Farmer Fred
Proud Libertarian
12:40 PM on 05/03/2012
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), also a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, told HuffPost he also felt less encouraged because Republican-appointed members of the court seemed to take a partisan stance on the issue.
"If you were there to see the sarcasm dripping from [Justice Antonin] Scalia's mouth as he spoke -- I thought they were on the Republican bench on the Judiciary Committee,"
NOTE to Rep. Gutierrez, if the attorney -- ANY attorney -- seems unable to plead his case, you will usually see the judge's words -- ANY judge -- 'dripping with sarcasm'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ennis438
02:57 AM on 04/27/2012
I don't know why anyone is surprised this bigoted, rabidly political, anti American court would rule for a plan proposed by Jan Brewer and other bigots.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Farmer Fred
Proud Libertarian
12:48 PM on 05/03/2012
Interesting, so no one could say "bigoted, rabidly political, anti American court" about some of the decisions of the Stone court, the Vinson court, the Warren court, the Burger court or the Rehnquist court, could they? How about the Fuller court (Plessy vs Ferguson) or the Taney court (Dred Scott). In SOMEONE'S eyes, EVERY court is "bigoted, rabidly political, anti American".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ennis438
07:18 PM on 05/05/2012
None of the courts you mentioned have prostituted the country by allowing corporations to buy elections. This crooked group has. Rest my case.
03:06 PM on 04/26/2012
"You can't win in this Supreme Court. You better start learning that you better win in the court of public opinion and on election day," Gutierrez said. "That's what these arguments taught me today."

They can't win in court, so they'll have to settle for winning at the ballot box. LOL. No s***, Gutierrez.
photo
SteveC 1979
Just...don't.
11:02 AM on 04/26/2012
Glad to hear this...very encouraging.
10:40 AM on 04/26/2012
Voter ID fraud, open borders, race wars, and class wars, all part of Obama's re-election strategy. Welcome to Hope and Change.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:12 AM on 04/26/2012
Nobody should have ANY confidence in this SCOTUS doing anything remotely sensible, moral, constitutional or - well, good. Pick any contentious issue where there is an insane and extreme response which sensible folk realize is probably going to cause a lot of problems and the loss of civil rights and - SCOTUS steps in and picks the insane idea and makes it the law for all of us. Do you not like your neighbor? Well get together with a developer, plan a shopping center which will bring in more taxes than your neighbors 3 bedroom house and go for seizure by eminent domain. SCOTUS ruled that was fine. Jail Administrators worry about getting sued for civil rights violations for treating people (especially minorities) as if they are guilty so SCOTUS rules - hey whatever they decide they need to do is fine and can't be criticized. So strip searching someone who isn't guilty is now just fine.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:56 AM on 04/26/2012
If the Supreme court rules in favor of the states does that mean illegals like Obamas aunt and uncle dont get free housing and food from taxpayers anymore. The next time Obamas illegal uncle gets picked up for drunkin driving will he actually get a penalty not a free car and a job.
photo
taylo
Where the he!! is that specter ?!?!
11:17 AM on 04/26/2012
agree.
there have been too many americans murdered by illegal aliens drunk drivers....and they more than likely have been deported more than once.
r.i.p. officer rodney johnson...shot 6 times by an illegal that had been deported twice.
05:21 AM on 04/26/2012
Wow! What a complicated situation. Why wasn't all of this fence hopping stopped years ago?
America at least as I've known it will never be the same again. I'm saddened by the change.
Sure we've always had immigrants coming but not illegally and with the attitude that it's OK. to walk in and put it in your face. Where is the respect for the USA,
yakee1956
smile you'll feel better
07:12 AM on 04/26/2012
Ugh!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
smoknjoe
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
01:37 AM on 04/26/2012
Maybe now people will understand that the term "ILLEGAL" really does mean illegal. Now the hard part. Go after the people who hire illegals. Give them large fines and jail time. They knowingly break the law so punish them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Sipher
Support science and engineering
04:45 AM on 04/26/2012
I take it that you are a contractor.
photo
LJ P
aut viam inveniam aut faciam
08:46 AM on 04/26/2012
I personally can't agree more. IF the SCOTUS approves 1070, the next step should be to go after the businesses HARD.. They should have been doing that all along. They are as illegal as the immigrants.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Watkins
Ă€ Rebours
01:14 AM on 04/26/2012
"Even if the justices unblock the contested sections of SB 1070, Gutierrez said there may be political means to stop it. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced on Tuesday he will introduce a bill that would ban states from creating their own immigration enforcement legislation, should the court rule in favor of Arizona."

Senor Schumyer has a history of grandstanding for his Latino constiutents. It would never pass, but he won't mind wasting taxpayer time and money securing more votes in his district.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheScarletPimpernel
Pimpernelin aint Easy !
03:42 AM on 04/26/2012
I guess the republicans will be happy to vote no...say goodbye Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Nth Carolina,Florida and i forget where else but you will win Alabama, SC and hmmm...Kentucky......er hmmmmm Idaho..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Watkins
Ă€ Rebours
06:14 AM on 04/26/2012
You must be reading the Huff to believe that Dems will win Arizona. Lol, I have seen all of the geniouses here tell us that the whole law would be struck down. They are wrong on that issue and you are wrong on the states.
12:11 AM on 04/26/2012
So Chuck Schumer is introducing legislation to ban states from passing legislation like SB 1070? Great! Uh, Chucky, how do you plan on getting that through the House, on it's way to the desk of the KENYAN KOMMIE!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fizzbin
Except on Tuesday
12:09 AM on 04/26/2012
Yes, mass incarcerations will definitely endear the Republicans to the Hispanic voting block. They really do seem to be at war with all demographics except white males.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aaron Watkins
Ă€ Rebours
01:15 AM on 04/26/2012
I see you've swallowed the fallacious and racists rants of the left hook line and sinker on this issue. There will be no mass incarcerations.

Hopefully just mass self-deportations.
01:52 AM on 04/29/2012
According to Lou Dobbs, there may be as many as 20 million illegals in the US right now. Do you really think they are going to self-deport?
photo
LJ P
aut viam inveniam aut faciam
08:54 AM on 04/26/2012
The majority of the Hispanic block that will be angry about this is the i12 million illegals themselves. They aren't to be voting anyway. The rest who MIGHT be upset are those who have family or business ties to the illegals who might be legal. That is a small group.
11:56 PM on 04/25/2012
Illegal immigration will never win in the court of public opinion. It is best to stop supporting it. Its a non starter.
01:09 AM on 04/26/2012
F&F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sobaytransplant
Obama WINS - just as we knew he would.
03:42 AM on 04/26/2012
Who exactly is supporting illegal immigration? I haven't heard anyone do so yet.
photo
LJ P
aut viam inveniam aut faciam
08:57 AM on 04/26/2012
Are you serious. What do you think this debate is about? What do you think Groups like La Raza are about. They are supporting illegal immigration in order to pressure the government into unlimited legal immigration. It is a political tactic. The end game certainly is not illegal immigration for its own sake, the end game is total borderless unlimited immigration.
09:30 AM on 04/26/2012
It helps if you take your fingers out of your ears.
11:54 PM on 04/25/2012
If a cop pulls someone over for a traffic violation, they will ask for ID and they might find the traffic violator is wanted for a bank robbery (a federal crime) or maybe they are here in the U.S. illegally ( another federal crime). This law just counters local amnesty rules which are also illegal, but we live in a time when the DOJ picks and chooses which laws it wants to enforce.
06:06 AM on 04/26/2012
More correctly, if a policeman pulls someone over for a traffic violation, they will ask for a drivers license. Not just any photo ID will do.

Yep, they might find the violator is wanted for bank robbery or the individual is in the US illegally. They might also find the violator is simply someone driving a motor vehicle and made an error in driving.
photo
LJ P
aut viam inveniam aut faciam
08:59 AM on 04/26/2012
Ahh, yes... so? That happens every day already.