SB 1070 and the Scalia Clown Show
By As mentioned below, the Supreme Court struck down three of the four challenged provisions of the Arizona immigration law and left open an as-applied challenge on the other one.
As I also suggested below and explain further at the link, the Scalia dissent is a perverse masterpiece. It was particularly beautiful timing that it was issued just a week after his book attacking other judges for their insufficient legal formalism. His entire argument proceeds from a premise — that Arizona has the same inherent right to exclude people and control its borders as a nation-state — which is 1)ridiculous on its face and 2)has no support in any relevant American legal text. And lest you miss the point, the dissent is extensively salted by political polemics of no obvious legal relevance. In addition to what I quoted below, I especially treasure what he seems to think is a rhetorical question: “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?” I had no idea that states could preempt federal law as long as the federal government is exercising its powers in ways that Antonin Scalia doesn’t like.
In conclusion, Antonin Scalia believes in the rule of law and you don’t. Shame on you!
…I forgot to mention this, but also compare Scalia’s arguments about preemption in this case with his opinion stretching a federal statute like taffy to preempt state-permitted class-action lawsuits in Concepcion. Hacktacular! More on Scalia and SB 1070 here.