Can Arizona Prevail on Fighting *Illegal* Immigration?

Here's some of what Rush had to say on the subject

"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."