Right Wing Media Desperately Deny Reality of Supreme Court Immigration Decision

The spin has never been more obvious

MediaJune 2012 • Views: 27,762

Today we have a graphic illustration of the blatant right wing bias of certain parts of the media, as the Supreme Court strikes down three of four provisions of Arizona’s draconian immigration law SB1070. The correct way to describe this is: Court Strikes Down Much of Arizona Immigration Law.

But if you click over to the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, you see this: Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law.

And if you click over to the Murdoch-owned Fox Nation, you see this: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law.

It’s almost funny to watch the right wing desperately denying the reality.

Note that the main author of Arizona’s immigration bill that was just gutted by the Supreme Court, Kris Kobach, is now Mitt Romney’s adviser on immigration issues.

Jump to bottom

43 comments

Obdicut Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:11:02am

And how much money was spent in the process of shutting down the stupidities in this law?

freetoken Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:11:18am

The Murdoch NYPost was trying something similar this morning.

Charles Johnson Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:12:39am

And now the Wall Street Journal has changed their headline to, "Supreme Court Allows Immigration Checks."

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:13:53am

No worries. Mitt Romney will use his incredible pretzel logic to make it appear as if he opposed the Arizona law all along and never hired Kobach.

Charles Johnson Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:14:18am

THE RETURN OF DEATH PANELS!

"Death Panel" Three Years Later fb.me/1WVNvDf6L
— Sarah Palin (@SarahPalinUSA) June 25, 2012

Kragar Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:14:47am

re: #4 HappyWarrior

No worries. Mitt Romney will use his incredible pretzel logic to make it appear as if he opposed the Arizona law all along and never hired Kobach.

He'll have him set up conference calls, then tell him not to talk during them.

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:16:23am

re: #5 Charles Johnson

THE RETURN OF DEATH PANELS!

[Embedded content]

Man does that woman need help.

Kragar Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:17:04am

re: #5 Charles Johnson

THE RETURN OF DEATH PANELS!

[Embedded content]

DERP PANELS!

Lidane Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:17:15am

re: #7 HappyWarrior

Man does that woman need help.

So does anyone who takes her seriously. WTF.

iossarian Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:17:17am

Mitt Romney: The Supreme Court ruling just confirms that, if elected president, I would make everything better for everyone, immediately.

Obdicut Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:17:17am

re: #4 HappyWarrior

No worries. Mitt Romney will use his incredible pretzel logic to make it appear as if he opposed the Arizona law all along and never hired Kobach.

I think his string-pullers are going to keep him on his extremist anti-immigration line, actually. And I think it may cost him the election, but I think changing might also cost him the election.

The GOP has an actual problem: they're the party for white people. They can't change that with shitloads of spending, or their media outlets. Hispanics aren't suddenly going to believe that Mitt "all of them should self-deport" Romney is trustable on this issue. He'll get the votes of Hispanics for whom this issue is overridden by others, mostly the hyper-religious.

I'd be very surprised if he moves towards the middle. He may move towards the completely vague, but that'd be it.

iossarian Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:18:13am

re: #11 Obdicut

I'd be very surprised if he moves towards the middle. He may move towards the completely vague, but that'd be it.

He hasn't yet stated whether he supports the SC ruling, or not.

Bulworth Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:21:25am

And if you click over to the Murdoch-owned Fox Nation, you see this: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law.

I guess Scalia must have been all upset about nothing then. //

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:21:43am

re: #11 Obdicut

I think his string-pullers are going to keep him on his extremist anti-immigration line, actually. And I think it may cost him the election, but I think changing might also cost him the election.

The GOP has an actual problem: they're the party for white people. They can't change that with shitloads of spending, or their media outlets. Hispanics aren't suddenly going to believe that Romney "all of them should self-deport" Romney is trustable on this issue. He'll get the votes of Hispanics for whom this issue is overridden by others, mostly the hyper-religious.

I'd be very surprised if he moves towards the middle. He may move towards the completely vague, but that'd be it.

All my joking aside, I think you're absolutely right. And to add on to your party for white people comment, I'd say they're the party for rich and old whites as well. I've seen nothing that shows they're going to change as a party any time soon. Just to go with the same formula that they've been going with since Obama's been elected and I think that won't work long term because of changing demographics that favor their opponents.

dragonath Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:22:27am

How far to the middle can you go when elements of your base believe the Loch Ness monster is real? I just hope dinosaurs come back and eat these people.

Kragar Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:23:30am

Atlantic Ocean trolls NC, VA...

"You're passing laws saying I'm not going to rise? TROLOLOLO!"

East Coast Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Rest of World, Gov’t Study Shows

A new U.S. Geological Survey report published Sunday says that sea levels are rising three-to-four times faster along parts of the U.S. east coast than they are globally.

“Since about 1990, sea-level rise in the 600-mile stretch of coastal zone from Cape Hatteras, N.C. to north of Boston, Mass. — coined a “hotspot” by scientists — has increased 2 - 3.7 millimeters per year; the global increase over the same period was 0.6 - 1.0 millimeter per year,” the U.S. Geological Survey said in a news release. “Based on data and analyses included in the report, if global temperatures continue to rise, rates of sea level rise in this area are expected to continue increasing.”

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:24:04am

re: #12 iossarian

He hasn't yet stated whether he supports the SC ruling, or not.

He's probably waiting to see how others react. Mitt's never been much of a leader. More of a "If it's popular and I think I can win with it, I'll do it." Hence why he went from de-emphaizing his Republican affiliation when he ran against Teddy Kennedy to being "severely conservative" this year.

Targetpractice Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:27:07am

re: #16 Kragar

Atlantic Ocean trolls NC, VA...

"You're passing laws saying I'm not going to rise? TROLOLOLO!"

East Coast Sea Levels Rising Faster Than Rest of World, Gov’t Study Shows

The politicians in Richmond argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle while portions of Portsmouth and Norfolk were under water during 3 hours of hard rain last week.

I seriously gotta get out of this state.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:27:37am

Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Tough Arizona Immigration Law.

If Murdoch had been around in 1865: "Lincolns enjoy play, leave early."

lawhawk Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:28:53am

The decision struck down everything but the following provision, which was carried unanimously:

The court unanimously sustained the law’s centerpiece, the one critics have called its “show me your papers” provision. It requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.

The decision doesn't eliminate state action on dealing with illegal aliens, but it begins to set out a path of permissible actions.

The three items that were struck down as unconstitutional are as follows: (1) making it a crime under state law for immigrants to fail to register under a federal law; (2) making it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or to try find work; and (3) allowing the police to arrest people without warrants if they have probable cause to believe that they have done things that would make them deportable under federal law.

The permissible law is an extension of law enforcement - figuring out who the person being detained is, after they've been stopped. The state can't arrest someone simply because the officer may think that they're illegal aliens.

It wont stop someone like Sheriff Joe from trying to go down that line, but if he does, expect to see a whole lot more litigation against his department. And a civil suit to boot.

The Ghost of a Flea Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:29:42am

Scalia Rages Against Obama On Immigration

In his point-by-point defense of the Arizona legislation, the avowed law-and-order conservative surmised that the Obama administration “desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers.” He accused federal officials of “willful blindness or deliberate inattention” to the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona.

His wingnut is showing.

wrenchwench Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:30:08am

I read part of the decision and the notes posted on it at WSJ. They make the headline sound stupid. One of the notes, with some emphasis added by me:

The court upholds the most high-profile piece of the Arizona law: the provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if the officers are suspicious of the person's right to be in the U.S. However, the court’s endorsement of the Arizona provision takes on a tentative tone. The court says it’s unclear what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this point, it would be inappropriate to strike down the provision, the court says.

The next note:

Justice Kennedy says nothing in the court’s ruling forecloses future challenges to the Arizona law once it has been further interpreted and gone into effect.

Or as Kevin Russell says in Charles's first link:

1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.

This is what Jan Brewer is calling 'a victory'.

Targetpractice Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:30:18am

re: #21 The Ghost of a Flea

Scalia Rages Against Obama On Immigration

His wingnut is showing.

Judicial restraint is a wonderful thing to behold, isn't it?

lawhawk Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:30:29am

re: #11 Obdicut

I'd be very surprised if he moves towards the middle. He may move towards the completely vague, but that'd be it.

That's the observation of the day folks. Mitt will obfuscate on the issue, because he can't come out in favor of a policy that would run against the positions that have gotten him this far.

Shiplord Kirel Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:30:44am

re: #18 Targetpractice

The politicians in Richmond argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle while portions of Portsmouth and Norfolk were under water during 3 hours of hard rain last week.

I seriously gotta get out of this state.

King Canute knew better than this 1100 years ago.

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet "continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: 'Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.' He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again "to the honour of God the almighty King". This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut's arrogance.

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:31:29am

re: #21 The Ghost of a Flea

Scalia Rages Against Obama On Immigration

His wingnut is showing.

Was just having a conversation with a co-worker about so called judicial originalists. Scalia's showing why that philosophy is just a kind way of saying conservative judicial activist with his tantrum here.

Targetpractice Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:31:50am

re: #22 wrenchwench

I read part of the decision and the notes posted on it at WSJ. They make the headline sound stupid. One of the notes, with some emphasis added by me:

The next note:

Or as Kevin Russell says in Charles's first link:

This is what Jan Brewer is calling 'a victory'.

In short, they didn't agree with the law, they just said lower courts were wrong to prevent it from going into practice. They didn't rule on its constitutionality, leaving the door open for future challenges.

Bulworth Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:33:28am

re: #21 The Ghost of a Flea

Scalia Rages Against Obama On Immigration

His wingnut is showing.

Just wait till the ACA ruling. He's going to be foaming at the mouth, regardless of the outcome.

wrenchwench Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:34:25am

re: #27 Targetpractice

In short, they didn't agree with the law, they just said lower courts were wrong to prevent it from going into practice. They didn't rule on its constitutionality, leaving the door open for future challenges.

That's how it looks to me. There are already lawsuits for racial profiling in Arizona. This will seemly add to them. Each stop must be for a legitimate reason other than immigration status.

lawhawk Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:36:38am

re: #22 wrenchwench

From the syllabus:

(1) The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of information about possible immigration violations. See §&sect1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at
___. Pp. 20–21.

(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that &sect2(B), in
practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees
for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This
would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal
framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in
custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision. But &sect2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the
law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the
course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been
released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to
federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume &sect2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law.
Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not
foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law
as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.

That's why Sec. 2(B) is permissible. However, those actions need to be carried out in a legal manner. So, if Sheriff Joe decides to go ahead and stop someone simply because they think they're illegal aliens - not for other reasons, that would fall into racial profiling and likely be deemed an unconstitutional and impermissible use of 2(B).

Targetpractice Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:36:39am

re: #29 wrenchwench

That's how it looks to me. There are already lawsuits for racial profiling. This will seemly add to them. Each stop must be for a legitimate reason other than immigration status.

And that, of course, it what makes this court seem so naive at times, that they pass these laws on the basis of "Well, so long as its legal, it's constitutional." Like Citizen's United, passed because Kennedy was naive enough to believe once unlimited funds were unleashed, efforts to restrain them would naturally come into practice.

S'latch Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:37:42am

The New York Times headline says "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece."

The Ghost of a Flea Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:37:44am

re: #26 HappyWarrior

Was just having a conversation with a co-worker about so called judicial originalists. Scalia's showing why that philosophy is just a kind way of saying conservative judicial activist with his tantrum here.

I'd say it's a stretch to even call originalism a "philosophy" of judicial action. It's not as if its advocates actually pull apart all of the available historical documents to make their assertions, or concede that some issues simply weren't addressed in a way that one could assert an original intent.

It's a bunk concept that uses the mythos of the founders as camoflauge for judicial activism that favors conservative causes.

lawhawk Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:39:28am

re: #29 wrenchwench

Correct. The decision gives states guidance as to what the Court would consider constitutional and unconstitutional. Similar laws in other states that have gone down the AZ 1070 route would find those laws unconstitutional, but Sec. 2(B) provisions might be unconstitutional as applied - it would depend on whether law enforcement is in compliance with state and federal law (and constitutional requirements).

HappyWarrior Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:40:17am

re: #33 The Ghost of a Flea

I'd say it's a stretch to even call originalism a "philosophy" of judicial action. It's not as if its advocates actually pull apart all of the available historical documents to make their assertions, or concede that some issues simply weren't addressed in a way that one could assert an original intent.

It's a bunk concept that uses the mythos of the founders as camoflauge for judicial activism that favors conservative causes.

That's a good point and a good example of Scalia letting his support for conservative causes get in the way of the Constitution is to see how he ruled in Lawrence V Texas- the case that overturned sodomy laws in Texas and that Rick Perry bemoaned in the debates.

wrenchwench Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:41:59am

re: #31 Targetpractice

And that, of course, it what makes this court seem so naive at times, that they pass these laws on the basis of "Well, so long as its legal, it's constitutional." Like Citizen's United, passed because Kennedy was naive enough to believe once unlimited funds were unleashed, efforts to restrain them would naturally come into practice.

Kris Kobach, the author or co-author of SB1070, accrues money and fame from defending the shit he writes. He doesn't so much care whether it's upheld as that it is challenged. The more controversial, the better. To be taken to the Supreme Court: the best.

ShaunP Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:51:38am

[Infographic] What's At Stake: SB 1070 at the Supreme Court

wrenchwench Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:52:40am

re: #34 lawhawk

Correct. The decision gives states guidance as to what the Court would consider constitutional and unconstitutional. Similar laws in other states that have gone down the AZ 1070 route would find those laws unconstitutional, but Sec. 2(B) provisions might be unconstitutional as applied - it would depend on whether law enforcement is in compliance with state and federal law (and constitutional requirements).

They already do these check in a number of jurisdictions, but only after an arrest while the suspect is in detention, and it's done under the supervision and training of ICE, which helps keep them in compliance with federal law. Looks like it's the potential delays during a non-arrest stop that could get them in trouble, in addition to lack of a good initial reason for the stop.

Bulworth Mon, Jun 25, 2012 11:58:27am

This is really shrill:

Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and on behalf of Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.:

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.

This, from the same Justices who today "effectively overturned a century-old Montana law that prohibited corporate spending on political races in the state."

[Link: pmcarpenter.blogs.com...]

Mattand Mon, Jun 25, 2012 12:04:14pm

re: #3 Charles Johnson

And now the Wall Street Journal has changed their headline to, "Supreme Court Allows Immigration Checks."

Earlier this morning, the NY Times (you know, horrendously left wing propagator of LIES!) reported as something like "Supreme Court Upholds Immigration Law".

They've know switched to "Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece."

Pinko commies.

Coracle Mon, Jun 25, 2012 12:10:15pm

It turns out this supreme court ruling is a better barometer than most to determine the slant of the organization reporting it.

Kos: "Supreme Court invalidates most of Arizona's 'papers please' law, leaves 'papers please' intact"

Think Progress: SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO ‘SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS,’ STRIKES DOWN PART OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW

NPR: "Justices Reject Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law"

Huffpo: AZ IMMIGRATION LAW 'GUTTED'

Politico: "SCOTUS clears key part of Ariz. immigration law"

TPM: "Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law"

FemNaziBitch Mon, Jun 25, 2012 1:02:35pm

Repost from previous thread because I watched the 90+ minute video and missed-out on posting while the thread was going on:

Ok, so I just finished watching the full documentary thru Amazon (free with Prime Membership). OMG! So worth watching even if you have to pay for it.

I had to pause several times to write this down:

"Those of you who can raise children,
You should Thank G-d.
Because many people produce children
But fail to raise them.
For me, my father didn't know
that he will leave one time.
Father, you should have been there
to see what I have done for the world.

Death has made us suffer.
Death is counting our ribs.
Death, which use to be for the chickens,
is now among us."

-Walusimbi Nsimbambi Haruna

TavernWench Mon, Jun 25, 2012 4:14:12pm

What's most telling to me is that both Fox and Jan Brewer are trumpeting "key part of the law upheld" when that "key part" is the stopping brown people and asking for their papers part. How proud they seem to be.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Right Wing Media Desperately Deny Reality of Supreme Court Immigration Decision

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud