. Obama's victory as court rules against Arizona
failure . The police can always check the status of immigration judges sayRomney avoids comment on the decision . Campaign
stop health law on hold until Thursday
Finally, here is a summary of the day's events, especially around the decision of the Supreme Court on immigration The campaign finance law and sentencing of minors.
. The Supreme Court overturned three parts of the controversial law on immigration Arizona SB 1070, arguing that the federal government is responsible for law enforcement national immigration. However, for reasons upheld a narrow section of the law that requires public officials law enforcement to verify the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons
. Opponents of the Arizona law, said the court's decision paved the way for ethnic profiling, but Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, has welcomed the decision to keep the "heart "the Arizona action against illegal immigrants . The court's decision calls into question the status of adopted similar laws in other countries to fight against illegal immigrants
. President Obama said he was "happy" with the decision and warned that the Department of Justice to monitor the use of immigration controls in Arizona for possible civil rights violations
. Mitt Romney avoided direct comment on the law or decision, saying donors at a private event that the United privileged to have a freer immigration, but blamed the President Obama "confusion" . The decision of the court on the custody of the Obama administration's signature health almost certain to be released Thursday. The court also canceled the mandatory minimum sentences of life imprisonment without parole for persons under 18 years, a move that affects about 2,000 children with both. Similar sentences but remain open for use at the discretion of the judge
Centennial Montana . A law banning corporate donations policy was also canceled by the Supreme Court, which reinforces the previous decision on the contributions of citizens Unlimited agencies. The White House said it was "disappointed" by the decision
. Republicans announced that the vote in the House of Representatives on charges U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, contempt of Congress on Thursday
5:34 p.m. The White House has finally reacted to the other
Supreme Court decision
This morning when the court rejected a law limiting donations Montana centennial policies - and avoid a challenge to the Citizens United campaign finance decision which opened the door for donations to political parties.through the Huffington Post, a statement from spokesman Eric Schultz the White House:
We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not seize the opportunity presented by the Montana case to reconsider its decision Citizens United.
Following the Citizens United decision, we have seen unprecedented amounts of campaign spending, often by groups that do not disclose their donors.
was wrong when decided and two judges of the Supreme Court have been observed since then, spending independent companies threaten the health of our democracy.
wrongCitizens United overturned long-standing cases of justice and to protect the integrity of elections. Unfortunately, today, the Court missed an opportunity to correct this error.
17:10:In today's decision of the Supreme Court,
event fundraising Scottsdale is collected $ 2 million, according to AP.
at a closed hearing in Scottsdale, Arizona, tonight fundraising:
would have preferred the Court to give more freedom to the United States, not less. And now there is the decision by states have less authority, less freedom to apply immigration laws.
Romney not elaborate on exactly what areas must be free states - issuing their own visa? - And in what could be an instance of the projection on his part described the result as "a mess":
And really become a mess. But it had to be that way. The president promised in his campaign in the first year would take on immigration and solve our immigration problems, has launched a long-term program to help people who want to come here legally against illegal immigration of address the security of our borders.
course, Romney has promised to do all these things in his first year, but without detailing exactly what it is. Well, he says he wants a "high-tech fence". The Bush administration tried: it was built a mile 32-1 billion, delivered
Specifically, Mitt Romney is trying to understand what Mitt Romney thinks.
Mitt Romney has broken his silence - sort of - in the decision of the Supreme Court on immigration law in Arizona.A report by the pool somewhere.
Meanwhile, aboard Air Force One, the spokesman for the White House
Jay Carney Give a warning shot in Arizona following the decision of the Supreme Court today:
the future, we must ensure that those responsible for the application of the law does not implement Article 2 of Arizona to undermine the civil rights of Americans. We are pleased that the Court recognized that the detention of people only check their immigration status would raise constitutional problems.
3:48 p.m. And while all the enthusiasm of the Supreme Court happened this morning, a new fragment unusually optimistic economic was lost in the tumult:
The Commerce Department reported that new home sales rose 7.6 percent in May from April to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000 homes. This is the highest growth since April 2010, the last month that buyers could qualify for a federal tax credit for buying a home. sales are up despite a weak job market has slowed down in other areas of the economy.
Mitt Romney campaign plane a moment ago that journalists pressed spokesman Rick Gorka on Romney what Romney's position in the decision of the Supreme Court and the immigration law in Arizona really is.
is a long - enterprise-class circular, like sit-com version of Waiting for Godot - frankly. Here is an example:
:. The Governor supports the right of states, that is all I will say on this topic
Q: Do you have a position on the law, or no position
Gorka : The Governor has its own immigration policy that was presented in Orlando and the primary should be the President of solve this problem. While Obama has been four years in office and has not yet addressed in a meaningful way. Q: But the governor has a position on the Arizona law, in addition to supporting the right of States
Gorka: This debate is born of the President has not addressed this issue, so that each state is on the left and the authority to develop and approve its own immigration policy.
Q: But the Arizona law makes very specific things, not the governor to support those things that make the Arizona law
:. We addressed this Q: What is your position on the current law Arizona
:. Again, each state has the right under the Constitution to make their own immigration laws because the federal government has failed
Q: But do you think the Arizona law? You talk about the right of states to have a law, but you do not give any position on the current law.
Still no joy in the brains of Mitt Romney's decision in Arizona today, Ginger Gibson of Politico Report: not like it came out of nowhere -. The case presented to the Supreme Court and high-profile
2:39 p.m.Barack Obama
appears at a rally in Durham, New Hampshire now, and looks like a large crowd in New Hampshire.
Instead, Obama puts business career of Mitt Romney - and tries to make fun of the Romney campaign to explain the difference between offshoring and outsourcing. "That's what I said, I do not do this," Obama said, repeating a familiar line of attack against Romney.
Jan Brewerknow that the eyes of the world will be on us. We know that the critics will watch and wait, wait for another opportunity to continue their aggression against our state. decisions of the Supreme Court demolish a large portion of its own immigration law, SB1070, during a press conference in which he said: "Today, the Senate Bill 1070 has been confirmed and the heart of the bill unanimously reaffirmed " Brewer here also shows a slight tinge of paranoia:
1:53 p.m. now appears Mitt Romneynot whether or not it agrees with the decision of the Supreme Court of Arizona today:
really should translate this tweet Philip Rucker The Washington Post in a good approximation of English:
Mitt Romney spokesman Rick Gorka campaign conducted a Q and a seven-minute session with the press, but when asked if the applicant agrees with the Court's decisions Supreme involving controversial immigration law in Arizona, known as SB1070.
1:42 p.m. TheService Employees International Union
said there is a cloud in the silver lining in Arizona today's decision, the decision "legitimate racial discrimination":
The Court could decide, but - the people -. Have the last word
This resolution makes clear that our campaign to mobilize Latino voters and communities of color to organize and develop our voting power is an absolute necessity. On November 6, we will be heard at the polls.
The super-vigilant Ana Marie Cox
This is what Scalia had to say in today's decision:
points per judge Scalia evil in his dissent from today's decision Arizona.
But "[t] he myth of an era of unlimited immigration" in the first 100 years of the Republic, the United States have passed laws restricting immigration many of certain categories aliens, including convicted criminals, homeless, people with contagious diseases, and (in the southern states) freed blacks.
Those were the days. Ah yes, "the freed black" indeed. And the southern states have laws that the Supreme Court upheld, if we remember.
Senate Majority Harry Reid Nevada is concerned so the Supreme Court which became law in Arizona
am very concerned that the supply to American citizens in danger of being arrested by the police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will result in a system of racial profiling .
13:00: The Internet seems to be dismayedMitt Romney 'milque- Bread response to the Supreme Court of Arizona that governs immigration.
Romney is even more eloquent media cheerleader, Jennifer Rubin, the Washington Post, moves smooth voice criticism of their lack of response:
declaration is sufficient, but could be more convincing .... We feel that, in their understandable focus on the economy, the Romney team does not appreciate the importance of other issues (eg, an officer out of control).
24:38in the Supreme Court decision today in the Arizona immigration law: President Obama
I am pleased that the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the immigration law in Arizona. This decision, it is perfectly clear that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our immigration system - is part of the problem
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of other provisions of the Arizona law requires that local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of any person that they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals can not be held solely to check the immigration status. No American should never live under a cloud of suspicion only because they seem to be. In the future, we must ensure that those responsible for the implementation of the Arizona law does not apply the law in a way that violates the civil rights of Americans, that the decision of the Court acknowledges. In addition, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws, focusing on the most important priorities such as border security and criminals who threaten our communities, and not, for example, students who obtain education - so that the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month to lift the shadow of the deportation of young people who were brought to the United States as children without any fault of their own.
24:20Here is the full statement
in the wake the decision of the Supreme Court
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our trip and we focus on the real task ahead: the implementation and application of this act equitably, that is the height of our citizens more American ideals. I know that the state of Arizona and its law enforcement officers below. The case of SB 1070 has always been our rule of law support. This means that all laws, including those against illegal immigration and racial discrimination. The police will be held accountable should be this bad law in a manner that violates the civil rights of a person.
course, today's decision does not mark the end of our trip. It is hoped that the legal challenges SB1070 in Arizona and the state continue. Our critics are already preparing litigation tactics in response to his defeat in the Supreme Court, and probably allege inequities in law enforcement. As I said two years ago, the day I signed into law SB1070, we can not give them that opportunity. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety honor Arizona deserves.
The last two years have been devoted to the preparation of the decision. When signing SB 1070 into 2010, I issued an order directing the Peace Officers Standards and Training Board Arizona to develop and provide training to ensure that our officers are prepared to enforce this right crossing efficient, effective and consistent with the Constitution. These days, pending this decision, I published a new decree calling for this course are available once again to all law enforcement officials in Arizona. I'm sure our agents are ready to perform this act responsibly and legally. Nothing less is acceptable.
carefully noted that Brewer tries out the possibility of a challenge to the provision of police action, section 2B in law.
today another important decision was the decision of the Supreme Court excess capacity of states to impose sanctions automatically
at the age of 18.
decision follows other recent decisions, as leader of the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for youth whose crimes do not include killing. Today's decision leaves open the possibility that the judge could choose to sentence juveniles to life imprisonment in individual cases of murder, but only at their discretion.According graphics of 2011, more than 2,500 minors serving life without parole in the United States, with 71 being only 13 or 14 years old when they committed the crime for which they were convicted.
AP reports that the decision of the majority "to life without parole for children under 18 years of age at the time of the offense violates the Eighth Amendment ban on" cruel and unusual punishment " "according to Justice Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
"Neither the text of the Constitution or our previous legislatures not to require that minors convicted murderers to be life without parole," said Roberts.The decision was taken in the case of robbery and murder of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who was 14 when he was sentenced. Miller was convicted of killing a man in Alabama. Jackson was convicted of complicity in a robbery that ended Arkansas in another murder. 24:05