Do you know the difference between normative and positive thinking? I'm not saying the legal issues SHOULD take a backseat to political motivations. At the Supreme Court level, however, I believe that IS what happens. I'm not persuaded by your condescension. You can argue that the thinkers behind legal realism didn't know what they were talking about legally speaking either, but it wouldn't be very effective. (And it's not just Bush v. Gore.)
You're engaging in fallacious reasoning by attacking my motives.
Your posts have been more emotional lately.
Yup, I know the difference. Both positions were taken in your post. First, the positive part:
Regardless of what legal arguments the Supreme Court uses to justify what is essentially a political issue, it doesn't make to restrain most of what Arizona is trying to do as a matter of policy.
And I stated my disagreement with that, or partial disagreement. SCOTUS rulings do not always break down on "party lines." Not even close. That is perception, not reality.
Then, the normative part:
This isn't like some state trying to counter federal race protections or environmental protections. It's the official policy of the US government to keep illegals out. (Even though clearly many of our politicians don't want to enforce it as a practical matter.) There's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy. The main source of objections is people who basically want open borders.
Where instead of making an argument about what is or isn't Constitutional, you express the opinion that "there's no good reason Arizona shouldn't be able to further federal policy."
No good reason, unless the Constitution says otherwise, right?
Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you're the one interested in politics over the law here.
Incidentally, I know very little about pre-emption doctrine. Not something I've studied much and it's fairly complicated. Too often people seem to prefer a Constitutional ruling that comports with their political view. We all say we revere the Constitution, but we always seem prefer the ruling to favor our political position without really knowing the applicable doctrine or precedent. If one doesn't know the law but wants the Court to follow it, it seems like the best thing to say is that you don't know the law but want the Court to uphold the Constitution above all else and leave it at that, assuming one really wants the Constitution upheld over a desired political result, that is. YMMV of course.
- wolf