Left Beside Itself Over Obama Regime's Performance at the Supreme Court
April 26, 2012
RUSH: The media is beside itself over the government's performance at the Supreme Court yesterday on the Arizona immigration law. We've got audio sound bites. Jeffrey Toobin, somebody get him away from high places. Somebody take the belt off of his slacks. Jeffrey Toobin is beside himself. He thinks they're gonna lose the health care thing, and he thinks that this debacle yesterday on the Arizona immigration law hurts.
These media people are showing the wide-eyed amazement that they displayed in the oral arguments over health care, and they're gob-smacked that the justices might actually uphold the Arizona law. They are so wedded to this regime, they can't believe anything going against it in any other branch of government. And they literally are beside themselves. They have been hit upside the head. They do not know what hit them. None of this is working out as it was supposed to. So we have three Drive-By news organizations who have headlined and detailed the unemployment news truthfully, negatively, honestly. And now, almost in defeat, throwing up their hands over the government's continued lackluster performance in oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
It's almost like before yesterday, the idea that the Supreme Court would find for Arizona and its immigration law never even crossed their minds. Just like it never crossed their minds that the Supreme Court would find Obamacare unconstitutional. They live in such a cloistered world in and among themselves that they do not even consider that their worldview might not occur. What's interesting is the Arizona law is basically... Well, it's not "harmless," but it's let me describe for you. All the Arizona state law does is require Arizona law enforcement officials (that would be "police" for those of you in Rio Linda) to enforce federal law on immigration.
There's no conflict between the Arizona state law and the federal law that anybody can cite, not even Mr. Verrilli. The government lawyer could not find and could not cite any conflict. So there's nothing unconstitutional about the Arizona law. It should be allowed to stand. But the news media, all they can do is echo Obama and claim that enforcing the federal laws on immigration is mean. "It's just mean. It's mean to send people back. It's just mean to identify people who are here illegally. We shouldn't be doing that." But isn't that always the case with laws? Aren't laws supposed to be mean to lawbreakers, depending upon the severity of the law?
But the court could not come up with a single rational reason to strike it down. These people were beside themselves.
The New York Times, ladies and gentlemen. A tantamount admission of defeat regarding the Supreme Court, the oral arguments yesterday on the Arizona immigration law. It's story by Adam Liptak. "Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared inclined on Wednesday to uphold a controversial part of Arizona’s aggressive 2010 immigration law, based on their questions at a Supreme Court argument." I'm not gonna read to you the whole story, but you just gotta trust me on this. This amounts to an admission of defeat from the New York Times, which, prior to this, seemed to be convinced that Arizona's immigration law would never survive a review by the Supreme Court. Not based on any legal arguments, just because it's so darned unfair for Arizona to try to actually enforce US immigration law.
The New York Times found it impossible that Obama could be defeated by some idiot governor. Obama doesn't lose. Obama sues Arizona. Arizona should cave. Arizona should say "uncle." Just because it's so unfair. Even the New York Times had to admit "justices across the ideological spectrum appeared inclined to uphold its central and most controversial part." And you know what that is? You know what the central and most controversial part of the Arizona law is? It's the provision requiring law enforcement to determine the immigration status of people they stop and whom they suspect are here illegally.
In fact, the wise Latina herself, Sonia Sotomayor, even told the US lawyer, Solicitor General Verrilli, "You can't see this isn't selling very well?" Talking about his argument. Things went so badly yesterday that the Times, in its article here, spends much of the article suggesting fallback positions after they lose. They float the idea that if the court upholds the law, that Obama should just sue Arizona again, and this time say that the law encourages racial profiling. I kid you not, that's what the New York Times says. When the government loses, Obama needs to sue Arizona again, and this time claim that the Arizona law cannot be accomplished without racially profiling illegals.
Most of the argument yesterday concerned a requirement that state officials check immigration status. Several of the justices noted that states are entitled to enact such provisions and that they are already commonplace. Even Justice Breyer suggested that he would uphold the provision if the process of checking immigration status would not mean detention for a significantly longer time than in an ordinary case. This law, all it does is ask the federal government to do something. And that's why I think it was Judge Roberts who said to Verrilli, the solicitor general, "You don't even sound like you're interested in who's here." Because that's all the Arizona law does is identify who's here illegally. That's all it does. And then asks the Feds to do something about it. And the Fed's don't want to do anything about it but sue Arizona. And Justice Roberts said to Verrilli, "You don't even sound like you're interested in knowing who's in the country."
So let's go to the audio sound bites. It hasn't been a good six weeks for Jeffrey Toobin. First, he was gobsmacked with the oral arguments on Obamacare. Then yesterday he was flabbergasted and gobsmacked with the oral arguments in Arizona. 'Cause these guys live in their little bubble where the only thing that exists is liberalism, and it always wins and triumphs, and they never hear opposing or alternate arguments, as in conservative arguments, and so when they do hear them, it's essentially for the first time, and they scratch their heads, "Who ever thought of that?" Even though it's all around 'em.
So we go to the audio sound bites. Last night CNN's John King USA, speaking with their legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. John King said, "Among those who think that this is a tough day in court for the federal government is our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, why do you think this was a tough day in court for the regime?"TOOBIN:
The justices just did not seem sympathetic to the argument that this was an invasion of federal power. All the justices who spoke, including the liberals, seemed to say, "Look, all this law does," at least the part that they were talking about, "is it identifies who is in the country illegally and then informs the federal government that those people are in the country illegally." It doesn't force the government to do anything. It doesn't tell the federal government to do anything. So federal power is not disturbed. That seemed to be a broad consensus, perhaps even a unanimous consensus of the court, and that's not good for the position the Obama administration was taking.
RUSH: Imagine that. Arizona law doesn't force the government to do anything, doesn't tell the government to do anything. Federal power isn't disturbed. And that's all that matters. Now, if federal power was disturbed, then these guys would be upset, because nothing, nothing is supposed to take away from federal power. Well, he said the consensus from the justices' questioning seemed unanimous, not that the decision is gonna be. He wasn't predicting that. He said no matter which judge asked questions, he said they all agreed that there's nothing wrong with this law, and why are you up here arguing? Why did you sue this state, there's nothing wrong with this law. That's the consensus that Toobin interpreted from the questions that were asked by the justices.
So John King, probing ever deeper for even more analysis asked this. "Jeffrey, this is about state versus federal power. Where's the line, Jeffrey? The health care challenge is about state versus federal power. Where's the line? How important is this court going to be on that question when we get these two and a couple of other decisions?"
TOOBIN: Well, this is just a term of epic, epic importance. Frankly, I think this case is less significant because the issues are more narrow, they're more technical. The health care case is about the power of the federal government, period, in an area where the federal government has been operating health care for decade. That case could redefine the nature of the federal government. This case I think is much more about how the government -- the federal government and the states operate at the margins. It's important, but I don't think it's nearly as important as the health care --
RUSH: See, I think this is all wrong. I think they're both equally important. You have the federal government suing a state? That is huge, if you ask me. When all the state is doing is seeking to inform the federal government who's here illegally so that they might help them out? You've got the government suing a state over learning this information? But notice what Toobin said about health care. "The health care case is about the power of the federal government, period. In an area where the federal government's been operating health care for decades, that case could redefine the nature of the federal government." Jeffrey, Obama is trying to redefine the nature of the federal government. And that's the problem. Obama is trying to redefine the Constitution. This case, health care, could redefine the nature of the federal government. It's Obama trying to do that. Not the court. That's the key to understanding that.