So Roberts, Scalia et. al., are reviewing Arizona’s SB1070 anti-immigration law and have immediately declared that racial profiling, which is at the very least implicitly encouraged by the law, off the table for arguments. Not to mention the dismissal of the Fed being the sole enforcer for immigration law apparently. This is very dangerous reasoning. No matter your politics on this issue, granting one state the right to enforce or otherwise interpret federal law opens the door for any state to freely interpret and cherry-pick laws it chooses to accept and enforce. This already happened during the Articles of Confederation days and was deemed by the Framers to be ineffective.
Granted, California is one state that has chosen not to enforce marijuana laws in favor of medical marijuana, but that situation is different in that it’s more of a protest against federal law and besides it’s not actually the State’s duty to uphold federal laws pertaining to controlled substances and/or international affairs (immigration).
I could go on, but for right now I’m very nervous about these activist judges claiming to be upholding what the Framers wanted and instead totally going against them to further their personal politics and biases. Not to mention the Arizona law is phrased in such a way to promote and encourage racial profiling with goes against other federal anti-discrimination laws. This whole thing is fucked up.