US Supreme Court Takes Up Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law

And it's looking very disappointing:

When Verrilli argued that the framers of the Constitution gave the federal government authority over immigration laws because immigration is inherently related to foreign affairs, Scalia snapped, "So we have to enforce our laws in a way that pleases Mexico."

Nor was Scalia pleased when Verrilli pointed out that Arizona's Latino population was implicitly targeted by the law. "Sounds like racial profiling to me," he grumbled, before crying out, "Are you objecting to harassing the people who have no business being here? Surely you're not concerned about harassing them." That American citizens of Latino descent in Arizona might be subject to harassment was irrelevant to Scalia. The government did not claim in its brief that the Arizona law would result in racial discrimination, but Scalia made it clear that he would not care if it did.

When our Supreme Court Justices fail to understand individual rights or the fact that the government must protect them, is there hope for any of us living in America?

Comments (2)

I'd discourage you from reading too much into the questions asked by the Justices. There is almost always aggressive questioning, and the media almost always pretends it's unusual.

With that said, the job of the USSC is not to defend liberty, but rather to interpret the Constitution faithfully. As Ayn Rand herself acknowledged, the Constitution permits many infringements of liberty that are not morally proper, but are entirely legal.

Regardless of how they eventually rule, Scalia's comments are still awful. I also don't claim the Constitution is perfect. I'd rather make the case for the way things ought to be.

I appreciate your comments, though, and they're entirely appropriate within the context of our immoral government.

Post a Comment