Tag Archives: supreme-court

CALIFORNIA GAY MARIAGE BAN OVERTURNED BY COURT

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, handing a key victory to gay rights advocates in a politically charged decision almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, CNN reported. added by: Future_America

Democrat-Backed Terror Bill Would ‘Gut Miranda Rights’

A bill that would give law enforcement more leeway during interrogations of people deemed a public security risk would “gut” the rights afforded to people who have been arrested, critics say. The bill, put forward at the end of last week by US House Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), appears to have the unofficial backing of the Obama administration, at least in principle. The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 would extend to four days the period of time that law enforcement has to question a terrorist suspect before bringing the suspect before a judge. Currently, as Schiff explains in a press statement, officials have six hours to present a suspect before a judge. Statements taken after that time would be inadmissible. Schiff's bill would give interrogators four days, provided the US attorney general or Director of National Intelligence sign off on it. The bill also includes a clause expressing Congress' belief that authorities can delay reading a national security suspect's Miranda rights “for as long as is necessary.” In his efforts, Schiff appears to have the unofficial backing of Attorney General Eric Holder. In May, in the wake of the Times Square bombing attempt, Holder said he wanted Congress to modify the public-safety exception to Miranda rights to make it easier to interrogate terrorists. (The Supreme Court has ruled that Miranda rights can be overlooked in certain national security situations, but backers of new legislation say the exception is not large enough.) In TV interviews, Holder said he wanted to see an expansion of the exception to Miranda rights, and that he would work with Congress to make that happen. Schiff told Politico that he got “no formal endorsement” from the Obama administration for his bill, but Politico reports that the Department of Justice is reviewing the legislation. Blogger Marcy Wheeler calls Schiff's proposed law a “gutting of Miranda rights.” She points to comments by Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution, who supports the legislation and said it should “focus more on suspects who pose a national security threat rather than those sought in connection with particular terrorism-related crimes,” according to Politico. To Wheeler, that suggests that many more people than just terrorism suspects could be caught in the new rules. “So can an environmental activist lose Miranda rights under this bill?” Wheeler asks. “Can Quakers?” Ken Gude of the Center for American Progress described the bill to Politico as “a proposed solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. … Whatever the political theater surrounding Miranda warnings, the FBI obtained valuable intelligence information from both the underwear and Times Square bombers under the existing rules.” (a little more @ link) added by: Omnomynous

We Told You So — Obama Tries to Pull a Fast One On Health Care

Sometimes you hate being right. In chapter 4 of our book, “The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency,” we make the point that Team Obama would try to pull a fast one when it comes to Obamacare's individual mandate that everyone reading this blog post needs to buy health insurance, or be subject to a penalty payable to your good friends at the IRS. We first made this argument in a column we co-authored with Senator Orrin Hatch in The Wall Street Journal back in January. Now this issue has suddenly exploded back into the news. For months, Team Obama has been saying that the individual mandate is authorized by Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, as found in the Commerce Clause. We explain in our book why that argument is a loser in court, and that the White House would have to pull a bait-and-switch and suddenly argue that the mandate is a tax (violating Obama's promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K per year). Looks like we were right. In their first filing against the multi-state lawsuit challenging Obamacare, Team Obama is now arguing that the individual mandate is… a tax. If you read chapter 4 of our book, though, after we explain how the mandate is not authorized by the Commerce Clause, we then go on to explain how it is also unconstitutional if it's a tax.Evidently worried about this, Team Obama then goes on to argue that if the court doesn't buy the tax argument either (because the argument is bogus, perhaps?), then it's still justified under the General Welfare Clause. Anticipating that, our next section in chapter 4 explains why the mandate is also not authorized by the General Welfare Clause. We close that section by noting that one thing you're taught in law school is that the General Welfare Clause doesn't authorize the federal government to do anything. It is a limitation on federal power, not a source of additional power. When you cite the General Welfare Clause, you're grasping at straws. That's exactly what Team Obama is doing. Their legal argument is desperate, because the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. With the vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Supreme Court looming, this issue could not be more timely. We need federal courts that will uphold the Constitution's limits on federal power. They can start by striking down Obamacare http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/19/ken-blackwell-ken-klukowski-blueprint-… added by: congoboy

Pro-Life Students want Rubber Fetus Ban Overturned

Rubber fetuses given out by pro-life students at high schools in Roswell, New Mexico were banned because they were “distracting the educational environment.” The want for the ban to be overturned has created a court case bringing to question where the first amendment lies in the situation. Matt Reynolds of OnPoint details: The suspensions of seven pro-life students at two Roswell, N.M., high schools for distributing rubber fetuses have given birth to a lawsuit that takes the First Amendment protections for student speech into uncharted territory. The students, who belong to a religious youth group called Relentless in Roswell, sued school officials last month, alleging their suspensions were unconstitutional. They were disciplined in February after they handed out hundreds of fetus dolls at Goddard and Roswell High Schools before classes. The complaint describes the dolls as two inches in length and “the actual size and weight of a developing unborn child at 12 weeks’ gestation.” Attached to the dolls was a verse from the Bible: “For you formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are your works.” “With a tangible and compelling communication medium,” the suit says, Plaintiffs sought to inform the other students of the truth about abortion, to point them to God, the Creator and protector of life in the womb, to encourage them to protect the life of the unborn, and to provide information concerning alternatives to abortion that would result in saving the babies instead of destroying them. Liberty Counsel, a conservative advocacy group, is representing the plaintiffs, who are seeking injunctive relief and the return of dolls that were confiscated by school officials. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), officials can only censor student speech that would seriously disrupt classroom or school activities. And pro-life activists in the nation’s schools have a track record of success in cases involving such materials as buttons, t-shirts and flyers. Earlier this year, a New Jersey judge found a student was improperly suspended for distributing pro-life flyers, noting there was no evidence that other students were upset by the flyers and “this somehow caused a disruption to the learning environment.” C.H. v. Bridgeton Board of Education. But there appears to be no case that addresses the distribution in schools of a graphic pro-life prop such as a rubber fetus. The Relentless in Roswell plaintiffs started out handing out more innocuous religious materials, including candy canes and painted “affirmation rocks.” On Jan. 29, they first attempted to distribute the rubber fetuses to which they had attached, in addition to the Bible verse, contact information for a church-affiliated pregnancy counseling center. Before classes started that day, a Goddard High administrator allegedly told the Relentless students, “It’s time to shut this down … Some people are getting offended.” He then confiscated containers holding hundreds of the rubber babies. At the Roswell High campus, the principal sent an e-mail to faculty which said the dolls should be confiscated since “These materials have NOT been approved from our central office for distribution.” The prior approval issue is likely to be part of the Roswell Independent School District's defense. The district's policy says in part: “Promotional activities must be approved by the school principal.” But the Relentless students say in their suit that the rubber babies were not “'advertising' or 'promotional' items in any commercial sense; they 'promoted' only [pro-life] ideas.” As far as offensiveness, the rubber fetuses may be more extreme than flyers and t-shirts. But in the recent “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that student speech is “proscribable because it is plainly 'offensive.'” Morse v. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007). Even if the dolls upset some students, the Roswell district won't carry the day unless it can show “a disruption to the learning environment.” added by: Stoneyroad

Most Nets Skip Over Their Advocacy of Broadcast Profanity; Newspapers Downplay Critical Voices

Most networks skipped over the story of their own corporate advocacy of broadcast profanity last night when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals shredded the FCC’s broadcast decency regulation. (All the networks signed on, with Fox in the lead). NBC’s Brian Williams offered 94 words, but erred in claiming “When a curse word has slipped out in the past, the FCC has imposed heavy fines on networks.” There were no fines for NBC when Bono said “f—ing brilliant” at the 2004 Golden Globes, nor were their fines for Fox when Cher and Nicole Richie for profanity at (respectively) the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards. ABC and CBS aired nothing. Fox News had no story in the transcripts offered to Nexis for searching. Fox’s corporate brethren at The Wall Street Journal had a story, but reporters Amy Schatz and Jess Bravin wrote a 727-word article with absolutely zero space for critics of the judges’ decision (including the Brent Bozell-founded Parents Television Council). The story did make explicit that Fox “led the case against the FCC and that “Fox is a division of News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.” Other newspapers offered small scraps for anti-profanity groups. The Washington Post’s front-page story by Cecelia Kang offered 50 words out of 771, in paragraph eight: The Parents Television Council called the decision a “slap in the face,” and Concerned Women for America, an advocacy group for indecency rules, urged the agency to appeal, lest broadcast television be open to the sexually explicit content and language of cable programs such as “The Sopranos” and “True Blood.” The New York Times story by Edward Wyatt put the anti-profanity spokesman in the very last paragraph (of a 17-paragraph story), with just 75 words out of 940: Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, said that while the court’s decision was troubling, it also emphasized the need for clarity about broadcast standards. ”It’s of concern because the F.C.C. has been a critical protector of children’s interests when it comes to media,” he said, adding that he expects that the commission will try to construct a more targeted approach to keeping indecency off the airwaves at times when children are likely to be watching. National Public Radio reported the story on Tuesday night’s All Things Considered by getting a rundown and analysis of the court case from legal reporter Nina Totenberg, but she offered zero reaction to the decision from anti-profanity groups. But on Tuesday’s Morning Edition , NPR offered another story on FCC regulatory policy – on the proposed NBC-Comcast merger – and NPR found air time for several critics gainst the media companies on the antitrust front. (And Totenberg did a story in that program on the Supreme Court year in review , with former Totenberg intern Tom Goldstein insisting there are not really any liberals on the court.) The networks are obviously terrible at covering themselves when they were brazen enough to go to court and argue that they should have the right to broadcast profanities of any kind at any time of the day. That is the effect of the 2nd Circuit’s decision. At the very least, they ought to be willing to air critics of ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox (and CW, if anyone cares). Censoring the story and the dissenters is a cowardly act. Remember this the next time they bray about the “public’s right to know.”

Link:
Most Nets Skip Over Their Advocacy of Broadcast Profanity; Newspapers Downplay Critical Voices

European Top Court Tells Monsanto It Can’t Abuse Patent Law To Stop Import Of Argentinian Soymeal

Seed giant Monsanto is a case study in how abusing patent laws can create serious anti-competitive results. Monsanto, of course, patented various genetically modified seeds, and then aggressively used patent laws around the world to make it so that it was effectively impossible to do much without having to pay Monsanto. The US Supreme Court made things even worse a few years back by saying that Monsanto's patents were infringed upon when farmers hung onto seeds from this year's crop to plant next year (a very common practice in farming). Last week, the US Supreme Court again helped out Monsanto by ruling (mostly) in its favor in another case concerning Monsanto seeds. However, the company is starting to see a lot more problems with its aggressive stance around the world. This week, the European Court of Justice smacked down Monsanto over its attempt to bar the import of Argentinian soymeal. Apparently Monsanto had failed to get a patent on its famous Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina (which now dominate the market), and dealt with it by blocking the import of such soybeans to other countries. Argentinian producers figured that if they couldn't sell soybeans directly, they could process it into soymeal and sell that. Monsanto claimed that because the soymeal came from soybeans that would be patented in Europe, the soymeal was also infringing. The court disagreed. That the court disagreed wasn't a huge surprise. The court had more or less made that clear a few months ago. Because of that, Monsanto tried to duck an important ruling against it by settling the dispute and withdrawing the original patent complaint. The European Court seemed to decide it wasn't going to let Monsanto off that easily. Even with the complaint withdrawn, the Court still went ahead with the judgment, making the point clear. Separately, some governments are now kicking off investigations into Monsanto's advertising statements about the very same Roundup Ready soybeans. Combine all of that and Monsanto also reported dreadful earnings, with a 45% profit drop. Once again, we're seeing what happens when you live off of artificial monopolies. They can make you rich in the short term, but they're no trick to building sustainable businesses. What the government gives in the form of monopoly rights, it can also take away. added by: JanforGore

‘Today’ Declares Itself a Gay ‘Ally,’ Will Permit Same-Sex Couples in Wedding Contest

NBC proved that it will respond quickly to charges of bias – at least if the charges come from a left-wing activist group. When NBC announced the “Today” show’s annual summer wedding contest, the network made it clear homosexual couples would not be eligible since New York does not license same-sex marriages. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation issued a press release condemning the decision and urged its members to complain to the network. After a meeting between GLAAD and NBC officials Thursday, the network announced it was reversing its decision . The “Today” show said its intention was neither “discriminatory” nor “exclusive.” NBC reminded viewers of its inclusion of same-sex couples in 2005, noting that “Today” is a “longtime supporter” and “ally” of the LGBT community. Appeased, GLAAD praised NBC for “living up to its own high standard of fairness.” To further accommodate its allies in the gay community, NBC extended the contest application deadline to Monday, July 12, and promised that future wedding contests “will be inclusive of all couples.” The contest, which has aired for 11 years on “Today,” gives viewers the chance to vote for one couple to have a wedding celebration professionally planned for them and broadcast live on “Today.” This is not the first time NBC has proven itself biased in covering the gay lifestyle. In August 2008, NBC Universal took out a full page ad in the program for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention declaring, ” Your Victories are Our Victories .” When the California Supreme Court rules laws banning same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, NBC’s Pete Williams declared on the May 15, 2008, “Nightly News” that it was a “huge victory for advocates of gay rights.” Most recently, in April 2010, NBC announced a partnership with gay magazine The Advocate. 

See the original post here:
‘Today’ Declares Itself a Gay ‘Ally,’ Will Permit Same-Sex Couples in Wedding Contest

Clarence Thomas’ Suicidal, Epileptic Nephew Punched, Tasered in Hospital [Incidents]

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and family are “outraged” after his nephew was allegedly punched, pulled and tasered at a New Orleans hospital, after a possible suicide attempt. The taser put him into a “massive epileptic seizure.” Video below. More

Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. His complaint? Thomas’s wife Virginia runs a political organization called Liberty Central which at this point has not revealed who its donors are.  “She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest,” whined Olbermann during Wednesday’s “Countdown.” “Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court” (video follows with transcript and commentary): Then there is Washington, D.C. Tea Partier Virginia “Ginny” Thomas. She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central. It’s more financially successful than most. “Politico” now reports she has only two donors, one for 50 grand and one for a whopping 500 grand. But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe. It is her right to be wrong and we must protect it. Virginia “Ginny” Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This probably is really, really obvious. The wife of a Supreme Court justice is soliciting donations to a political organization. The donors are anonymous and one paid her half a million bucks. Even if she tried not to, she cannot help but stand out from a crowd of yelping Tea Partiers because of her husband‘s name and position. She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest. The remedies are just as obvious. Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court. Otherwise, every verdict he renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling, and whatever effectiveness he has on the court will be reduced to a pathetic joke.   Before we get to the heart of the matter, isn’t it marvelous how a cable news anchor shows such disrespect to the wife of a Supreme Court justice?  “She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central…But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe.” Is this REALLY what the wife of a Supreme Court justice deserves just because she has different political beliefs than a television personality?  As to the substance of Olbermann’s complaint, every verdict Thomas renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling? Not just the ones that might actually involve donors to his wife’s organization? That seems absurdly sweeping even for the typically absurdly sweeping “Countdown” host. Sadly, if he and his staff had done the slightest bit of research, they would have uncovered what the Los Angeles Times reported  concerning this matter on March 14: “I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics,” said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. “Scot” Powe, a court historian. He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. “I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it,” Powe said. Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas. The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses’ political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor. Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband’s political office, she said. And what about this specific situation? Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife’s nonprofit. “There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim,” he said. Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal. But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. As such, despite Olbermann’s blathering, the only potential conflict here would be if the Supreme Court heard a case involving a donor to Liberty Central. At that point, there are procedures in place to deal with it. After all, in the many centuries we’ve had a Supreme Court, this isn’t the first time a justice’s spouse was involved in politics. If Olbermann and his staff had actually read the entire piece  he referred to in this report, he may have been far better informed on this subject: Neither a Liberty Central official, nor a Supreme Court spokeswoman would say whether the group would disclose the names of its donors to the Supreme Court legal office or to Thomas’s husband so he can avoid ruling on cases in which a major Liberty Central donor is a party. “Liberty Central has been run past the Supreme Court ethics office and they found that the organization meets all ethics standards,” [policy director and general counsel Sarah] Field said. “As she has throughout her 30-year history in the policy community, Ginni will address any potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis.” As Ginni Thomas has begun to emerge as a high-profile political player in her own right, friends and allies say has bristled at the focus on her husband, and questions about whether her involvement with Liberty Central could compromise his impartiality. The Thomases last faced conflict questions in 2000 when Ginni Thomas, then working for the conservative Heritage Foundation, solicited resumes for potential transition team members for George W. Bush, while Justice Thomas was part of the court majority that sided with Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore in the historic case of Bush v. Gore. In fact, this is certainly not the first time Thomas has been politically active: “In my experience working with her, people usually didn’t know (she was married to Clarence Thomas), because she doesn’t wear it on her sleeve,” said Kibbe, who worked with Thomas at the right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce while her husband was a federal appeals court judge rumored to be on then-President George H.W. Bush’s shortlist for the Supreme Court. After the Chamber, Ginni Thomas, who has a law degree, went on to work for the Labor Department under the Bush administration and later for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican who now chairs Kibbe’s group, as well as the Heritage Foundation, a pillar of the Washington conservative establishment. That was followed by the job as a Washington coordinator for Hillsdale College. Thomas, who declined to be interviewed for this story and has mostly limited her media interaction to conservative outlets, explained to the Washington Examiner last month that she decided to start Liberty Central because she “realized I needed to get closer to the front lines, that there was a more short-term crisis – and that unless we have a big impact in November and again in 2012, we wouldn’t recognize the country we’re living in.” She also explained to the Examiner, “My favorite times are when people who have worked for me for over 10 years come to understand only later that I am the wife of Justice Thomas.” Taking this a step further: Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told POLITICO that “Mrs. Thomas had reviewed her involvement (in Liberty Central) with the Supreme Court legal office.” But Arberg would not say whether Clarence Thomas had participated in the discussion, nor whether Liberty Central had agreed to reveal its donors to him or the court’s legal office. As such, the Court’s legal office is quite aware of the situation making Olbermann’s call for Thomas to step down if Virginia doesn’t disclose her donors quite absurd. Alas, that’s par for the course for MSNBC’s prime time clown who predictably makes hyperbolic fulminations without facts to support them. His hero Edward R. Murrow must be so proud. 

The rest is here:
Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law

Debating the fallout of the Obama administration’s attempt to squelch Arizona’s popular immigration law before it goes into effect later this month, CNN’s Campbell Brown on July 6 challenged a chief advocate of the law with a multi-pronged assault, only to see her attacks thwarted and her “misinformation” corrected. In a blatant contradiction, Brown dismissed State Senator Russell Pearce’s (R-Ariz.) “anecdote” about ranchers who are under siege because of the federal government’s failure to secure the porous border, but highlighted anecdotal evidence of opposition to the new law. “Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here,” instructed Brown when confronted with evidence of the Obama administration’s inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Later in the interview, Brown peddled the minority opinion among law enforcement groups to rebuke Pearce’s assertion that courts have upheld the right of states to enforce federal law: Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” “Well, those are fabrications,” retorted Pearce, who went on to list myriad law enforcement agencies in Arizona that have endorsed SB-1070 . Brown also took issue with Pearce’s claim that interior enforcement of federal immigration law is down 75 percent under the Obama administration, countering, “I don’t think those numbers are right. But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police.” After Pearce reminded Brown of the distinction between border enforcement and interior enforcement, the CNN anchor conceded the point. Conversely, State Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz), an opponent of the new law, was not raked over the coals for criticizing a law that enjoys widespread public support or for defending the White House’s politically-motivated lawsuit. In fact, Brown merely touted Sinema’s credentials and lobbed her a softball. “Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer,” explained Brown. “And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here?” At the end of the segment, the persistent lawmaker attempted to further discredit the CNN anchor’s fatuous claims, but Brown rushed to dispose of Pearce: “Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this.” “I do, too,” quipped Pearce. “It’s very important.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN Campbell Brown 7/6/10 8:04 p.m. CAMPBELL BROWN: Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema back with us tonight. She’s a Democrat and a vocal critic of the new law. But also with is state Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and one of the driving forces behind this new law. And, Senator Pearce, let met start with you. I want to read a little bit from the administration’s lawsuit that says — quote — “A state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws.” In other words, federal law trumps state law. How can you take issue with that? Arizona State Senator RUSSELL PEARCE (R): Well, you do take issue. First of all, enforcement is not regulatory, and the courts have ruled on this. The courts, the 5th, 6th, the 8th, the 9th, the 10th Circuit courts have all ruled. The United States Supreme Court has ruled on this, on states’ inherent authority to enforce the law. If Congress had not wanted us to enforce this law, they could have used what are called plenary powers. They’ve never done that. And absent that, through the supremacy clause, states have an inherent authority and responsibility to enforce the law. The misinformation out there is outrageous. The Obama administration simply is filing suit, a political lawsuit, if you will, because they have no leg to stand on, on the preemption issue. They are simply trying to enforce their current policy of no enforcement and amnesty. That’s what it’s about. They are not worried about profiling. This bill prohibits it. They’re not worried about what lawful contact is. The Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court, in a 9-0 landmark decision said if you have a lawful contact, you don’t need reasonable suspicion. But we still put it in this bill. This is about an effort to stop any enforcement as they can usher in their amnesty program. It is a non-enforcement policy. That is the policy. Interior enforcement is down 75 percent in this administration. It’s outrageous. States have inherent authority and responsibility. BROWN: I don’t think those numbers are right. I don’t have the figures in front of me. PEARCE: The numbers are right. BROWN: But everybody who has been on this program before, on both sides of this issue, has conceded that enforcement is actually stronger along the border with more police. PEARCE: No, no, no, no. I was talking interior enforcement, not border. BROWN: OK. PEARCE: And even then, I was just down there. I was just down there with the ranchers and the widow of Rob Krentz, Susie. And they said it is worse, it’s as bad or worse than it has ever been. So, again, the misinformation has to stop. BROWN: Well, I want to stay away from the anecdotal and stick with the figures as much as we can here. PEARCE: Those are facts. OK, those are facts. BROWN: All right. Representative Sinema, let me go to you. You have got both of your state senators who say the White House should let the law go into effect and then see what happens before forging ahead with a lawsuit. So, why not wait and see how this shakes out and whether it does do good? Arizona Representative KYRSTEN SINEMA (D): Well, I think’s important to note, first and foremost, that the Department of Justice has the clear authority and legal right to bring suit, even before the law is implemented. This law presents a great challenge and a really interesting legal question for our whole country. And hopefully this lawsuit can provide some clarity for those of us who are state actors, so we know where the state authority ends in terms of implementing immigration reform and where federal authority begins. I think that this law will allow the court to provide clarity not just for Arizona, but for the entire country, so we can have some real guidance on what kind of laws we can move forward with and what kind of laws we have to push Congress to pass and to enforce. BROWN: Let me ask you, because, as I understand it, you are a constitutional lawyer. SINEMA: Right. BROWN: And Senator McCain says that challenging a law that hasn’t gone into effect is a pretty heavy lift. Does he have a point here? SINEMA: Oh, yes. It is difficult to challenge a law before it goes into effect. And what will be happening some time next week is that Judge Bolton, our district court judge, will be hearing what’s called a request for injunction by the other five lawsuits that have already been filed. These groups are asking the court to enjoin the law, which means to stop it from going into effect, on July 29. And the court only grants injunctions when the plaintiffs present a good case and show that they are probably going to win. BROWN: All right. Let me ask you about this, Senator Pearce, because you mentioned this in your comments a minute ago. Law enforcement groups, some at least, have expressed concerns about whether they are going to be able to enforce this. There are two separate lawsuits as I’m sure you know in Arizona courts right now. One police officer, I believe, from Tucson suing, claiming the law will — and I have got the right quote here — “seriously impede law enforcement investigations and facilitate the successful commission of crimes.” I mean, what do you make of those concerns? These aren’t about political issues. These are law enforcement officers, right? PEARCE: Well, those are fabrications. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the largest law enforcement association in the state of Arizona, endorsed this bill and has filed to be an intervener to support this law. The Arizona Policeman Association, an umbrella organization of over 9,000 police officers, endorsed this bill. Nine out of 15 sheriffs endorsed this bill. The state fraternal order of police endorsed this bill. The Border Patrol Association endorsed this bill. That is such a fabrication. You always have an individual. The police chiefs don’t endorse it because they work for open-border mayors, sanctuary mayors, who have always stated they don’t want to enforce the law, have done everything they can not to enforce it. Let me bring up an interesting point. BROWN: Hold on. Before you bring up that point, let me let her, let me let Representative Sinema respond to that, because we are running out of time for here. Go ahead. SINEMA: Well, I do think it is important to note that many law enforcement officers are struggling with the failure of Congress to enact meaningful comprehensive reform. Right now in our state, we really are struggling with the lack of some kind of comprehensive law that gives law enforcement and police officers the tools they need to keep our communities safe. But some law enforcement officials have indicated some concern about the law because they could be sued for enforcing the law or sued for not enforcing the law. BROWN: Right. SINEMA: So, it does place some of them in a difficult position. BROWN: Representative Sinema and Senator Pearce, I know there are very strong views on both sides of this issue. PEARCE: Well, I would like to correct some of the misinformation. BROWN: Well, as I said, I wish we had more time to discuss this. PEARCE: I do, too. It’s very important. BROWN: But thank you both for coming on. Really appreciate your time. SINEMA: Thanks so much, Campbell. PEARCE: Thank you. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
State Lawmaker Discredits Campbell Brown’s ‘Misinformation’ About Arizona’s Immigration Law