Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made clear that the case, like last month’s arguments over President Obama’s health care law, was about the allocation of state and federal power.
“No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?” the chief justice asked [Solicitor General] Verrilli, who agreed.
Even more important is the prospect of lost foreign investment. Caught in the net of Alabama’s law in November was a German Mercedes-Benz executive, who left his passport at home while out for a drive and as a result found himself in a county jail. Mercedes has a plant in Tuscaloosa that employs thousands of Alabamians and adds many hundreds of millions of dollars to the state economy. That embarrassment will make the next foreign company think twice as it scouts out a location for a manufacturing facility in the United States.
Even without such blunders, international human rights advocates, union organizers and shareholder activists are putting these laws on the corporate social-responsibility agenda. Earlier this month, opponents of Alabama’s law traveled to Berlin to press the issue at Daimler’s annual meeting. This is the kind of hassle that corporations hate. Why deal with Alabama or Arizona when you can build in North Carolina or Florida, states that have refrained from pursuing extreme anti-immigrant measures?
It's clearly time for a Constitutional Amendment to do away with lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS.
Hmm. The law says you have to present a "valid federal, state, or local government-issued identification, if the issuer requires proof of legal presence in the United States as a condition of issuance."
For a brief time a couple years ago, California granted drivers' licenses and state IDs to non-legal residents.
That means any California ID is not proof of immigration status in Arizona. Anyone from California -- including non-immigrants -- could be arrested at any time, and thrown in the clink.
Romney’s first chief legal council, Daniel B. Winslow, who served from 2002 to 2004, established a non-partisan process for vetting judges through the Judicial Nominating Commission that was touted as a national model, because the primary application was judged blindly. That meant name, race, gender, and party affiliation, were not known during the initial review. Party affiliation was never a consideration, he said.
“People with political agendas really aren’t suitable for judgeships,” said Winslow, a former district court judge who is now a Republican legislator from Norfolk.
Winslow said that during the two years he served in the administration, the major reason Romney had few Republican appointments was a result of the talent pool.
“The fact is that there simply aren’t a lot of conservative lawyers in Massachusetts who were available for judgeships,” he said. “The pool of applicants was very low in many respects.”
Near the end of Romney’s term, in 2006, that he stripped the Judicial Nominating Commission of many of its powers, allowing his administration to put a more direct stamp on the judiciary, as he prepared to run for president.
« Older The HemLoft is an egg-shaped treehouse that Joel A... | An Artist Goes Undercover at a... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt