Supreme Court Watch

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on June 26, 2012

So the Court issued two opinions yesterday. One pretty much eviscerated Arizona’s immigration law (the only part of it which remained was the “show me your papers” section, and the justices basically warned Arizona not to go too far with that), and the other stated that mandatory life without parole for murderers under 18 violates the Constitution. Justice Kennedy provided the decisive vote for each case.

I wonder how any of this squares with the absurd notion that the Court is somehow an arm of the Republican party. And I wonder if James Fallows will be willing to revise his unfounded belief that the Court is acting in a purely partisan fashion. I doubt he will; like many other supporters of the Affordable Care Act, Fallows fears that the Court will strike part or all of it down, and he needs to get himself good and angry at the Court in advance by accusing it of being a partisan instrument of the VRWC. He can’t let silly things like facts get in the way of that theory.

  • BestGuest

    What are your thoughts on the Arizona immigration law case? Do you agree with Justice Scalia that state sovereignty is effectively dead? Isn’t this case just another nail in the coffin of federalism?

    • Pejman_Yousefzadeh

      I am of the mind that the Supremacy Clause should have governed, and don’t see this as a threat to federalism. Enforcing immigration law is a federal function.

Previous post:

Next post: