U.S. bishops greet Supreme Court decision on immigration with a mix of hope and...

...caution

Bishops Greet Supreme Court Decision on Immigration with Hope, Caution


See decision as step toward humane immigration reform
Seek federal government’s strong role in immigration
Wary that part of decision might lead toward racial profiling


WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops greeted with hope and caution the June 25 Supreme Court decision to strike down provisions of an Arizona immigration law that would have allowed warrantless arrests of people suspected of an offense that is deportable, that would have made it a crime to seek work in the state and that would have made undocumented presence a state crime.

The bishops found hope in the decision in Arizona vs. United States and said it reflects the bishops' call for humane and just immigration laws and concern for laws that could tear families apart. Their caution lay in the lifting of an injunction against immigrants having to show papers in some circumstances.

The bishops had filed a friend of the court brief in the case.

Continued-
U.S. bishops greet Supreme Court decision on immigration with a mix of hope and caution...

__________________
Your socks stink.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

~Charles Dickens

The most interesting part of this decision was that it was a 6-3 decision, with Roberts and Kennedy joining Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer.

Apparently Roberts is fed up with the hardcore ideology of the court and wants to see more decisions that aren't 5-4 (with Kennedy as the swing vote.)

Apparently the Supreme Court justices are very concerned about their image as hardcore ideologues influenced by their wives' and sons' patronage jobs, and golfing excursions with people involved in the cases they're hearing.

In the "minority" opinion on immigration, Scalia quoted Tea Party talking points to defend his opinion.

He shouldn't even be talking to the tea party.

Apparently when the Supreme Court tried to strike down New Deal programs in the 1930's, FDR went after them, seeking to increase the number of justices. Today's court fears that if they keep upholding big business instead of the Constitution, there will be clamors to change the structure of the court again.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yeah but that backfired on FDR with the court stacking uproar. His attempt failed and it was a good thing. A popular president should not be able to push things through congress that are unconstitutional even if they are good things. Checks and balances.

I think you are attributing a lot of your own view to Roberts vote. He could have just thought the law was bad. I don't think it is an indication of him being anything but honest. Not fed up with whatever.

Unless I missed it where he said that.

In particular because a different ruling had it the 5-4 with kennedy as the swing vote to oppose giving juveniles life in prison with no parole. So I doubt he would be drawing a moral line here and deciding a 15 year old should be in prison for life.

His comments on his rulings in almost all cases center on legality not morality.

__________________
If pregnancy presents a challenge, do we as a society rise to the challenge by dispensing with the child? And when a pregnancy comes at a difficult time, what is the worthier response? Do we surround mother and child with protection and love, or do we hold out to her the cold comfort of a trip to an abortionist? Where is our true character as a nation to be seen - let's ask ourselves this question: Where is our true character to be seen, in an adoptive home, or in an abortion clinic? Who are we? Who are we America? That question deserves an answer.
Bob Casey Sr.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I had heard the comment about Roberts on the radio--it wasn't my idea--it was a legal commentator on one of the networks.

I think it's appalling that 15 year olds could be sentenced to life without parole.

Instead, we should be looking to see why, with 5% of the world's population, we have 20% of the world's incarcerated.

Obviously our prisons aren't doing a good job of rehabilitation--our focus should be on trying to rehabilitate first time offenders.

But by far the most egregious and partisan decision was the Citizens United decision.

When elections can be bought by big business (which bought a reprieve for Gov. Scott Walker by spending $8 for every $1 Walker's opponent spent) then the balance of power shifts in our country. One court (the Roberts court) figures the way to exert its conservative will on the country in perpetuity (or revolution, which would be likely) would be to let their big business buddies buy elections in perpetuity. How partisan is that?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.