As the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on Arizona immigration law, supporters crackdown install an amplifier on the pavement in front of the court and belted out a song:
We've got illegals in the back yard; / It's time we kept our borders once again. / I think that's great Arizona / protection of citizens of the state / and I think all of this land / In Arizona we should take a stand.
Tone protests Anthem and the material was almost identical to the argument Justice Antonin Scalia made in the court.
While other judges at least tried to veneer on a fair and impartial hearing in a highly charged case, Scalia left no doubt from the beginning he was a champion in Arizona crackdown and that he would verbally lace rate anyone else found.
"The state has no power to close the borders to people who have no right to be there?" he asked incredulously.
And "What is" sovereignty "means if it does not include the ability to defend your territory?"
And "Are you challenged to harass people who have no business being here Surely you're not worried about the stimulus?".
And: "We must enforce our laws in a way that will please Mexico?"
Technically, Scalia was asking advice, but at best the questions were rhetorical. Sometimes he verged on driving heck ling. He breaks Solicitor General Donald less wicked, who was and argues against the Arizona law to say that his position "sounds like racial profiling to me."
He was not wordiest Justice - Sonia Sotomayor interjected 36 times in 35 Scalia is a 90 minute session - but he was by far the most corrosive and least inclined to subdue his partisan instincts.
Tart tongue Scalia has been a fixture on the bench for years, but as judges projects this year in a highly political areas such as health care reform and immigration, as divisive and pugilistic style senior associate justice is very much to define the general form of the Roberts Court.
When John Roberts became chief justice, he spoke about developing a consensus and move out 5-4 decisions, but rather the tone is set by Scalia, the justice who took first Street NE last year to deal with the acquisition of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.
The immigration argument Wednesday, several judges were thoroughly challenging both sides. Roberts noted that part of Arizona law applied "significantly higher penalties" than federal law.
Sotomayor reported less wicked at one point that she was "terribly confused by your answer," and let him know that "it is not selling very well."
Scalia was not only ill-tempered justice in the chamber. Samuel Alito rolled his eyes in the air and shook his head in protest when two liberal judges spoke. And Sotomayor took a shot at the conservative judges when she can "those of us in the legislative history has a meaning."
But Scalia was leading dyspeptic, interjecting their way through the grounds. He breaks Sotomayor, demanding to know whether Arizona "to be within the borders of all people who have no right to be there."
He interrupted Paul Clement, the attorney representing Arizona, if only to mock the federal government's immigration response funds as "yes, he is an illegal immigrant, but that's OK with us."
He interrupted Solicitor general to inform him that "Arizona is not trying to kick out who the federal government has already said do not belong here" and again to say that Executive "does not want these laws enforced so strictly."
Scalia derisively likened position Obama administration to say that it would apply only "professional bank robbers" and would protest when the government decides to apply for an "amateur bank robber."
We've got illegals in the back yard; / It's time we kept our borders once again. / I think that's great Arizona / protection of citizens of the state / and I think all of this land / In Arizona we should take a stand.
Tone protests Anthem and the material was almost identical to the argument Justice Antonin Scalia made in the court.
While other judges at least tried to veneer on a fair and impartial hearing in a highly charged case, Scalia left no doubt from the beginning he was a champion in Arizona crackdown and that he would verbally lace rate anyone else found.
"The state has no power to close the borders to people who have no right to be there?" he asked incredulously.
And "What is" sovereignty "means if it does not include the ability to defend your territory?"
And "Are you challenged to harass people who have no business being here Surely you're not worried about the stimulus?".
And: "We must enforce our laws in a way that will please Mexico?"
Technically, Scalia was asking advice, but at best the questions were rhetorical. Sometimes he verged on driving heck ling. He breaks Solicitor General Donald less wicked, who was and argues against the Arizona law to say that his position "sounds like racial profiling to me."
He was not wordiest Justice - Sonia Sotomayor interjected 36 times in 35 Scalia is a 90 minute session - but he was by far the most corrosive and least inclined to subdue his partisan instincts.
Tart tongue Scalia has been a fixture on the bench for years, but as judges projects this year in a highly political areas such as health care reform and immigration, as divisive and pugilistic style senior associate justice is very much to define the general form of the Roberts Court.
When John Roberts became chief justice, he spoke about developing a consensus and move out 5-4 decisions, but rather the tone is set by Scalia, the justice who took first Street NE last year to deal with the acquisition of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus.
The immigration argument Wednesday, several judges were thoroughly challenging both sides. Roberts noted that part of Arizona law applied "significantly higher penalties" than federal law.
Sotomayor reported less wicked at one point that she was "terribly confused by your answer," and let him know that "it is not selling very well."
Scalia was not only ill-tempered justice in the chamber. Samuel Alito rolled his eyes in the air and shook his head in protest when two liberal judges spoke. And Sotomayor took a shot at the conservative judges when she can "those of us in the legislative history has a meaning."
But Scalia was leading dyspeptic, interjecting their way through the grounds. He breaks Sotomayor, demanding to know whether Arizona "to be within the borders of all people who have no right to be there."
He interrupted Paul Clement, the attorney representing Arizona, if only to mock the federal government's immigration response funds as "yes, he is an illegal immigrant, but that's OK with us."
He interrupted Solicitor general to inform him that "Arizona is not trying to kick out who the federal government has already said do not belong here" and again to say that Executive "does not want these laws enforced so strictly."
Scalia derisively likened position Obama administration to say that it would apply only "professional bank robbers" and would protest when the government decides to apply for an "amateur bank robber."
