Breaking News, World News and Taiwan News.

Is US Supreme Court ruling on immigration a hint on health care?

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona immigration case on Monday showed a conciliatory streak within a divided court that could emerge again when the justices issue their climactic health care decision on Thursday.

What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone's guess. Yet the justices' evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a health care decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines.

Monday's decision, written by conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined in full by fellow conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and — notably — three liberals, struck down most of the Arizona measure intended to drive out illegal immigrants. The court also, as it upheld a controversial requirement for police stops of people suspected of being in the United States illegally, suggested limits on how long people may be detained.

Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona — and, by extension, several other states — to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.

The justices' regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the health care ruling.

“Both problems transcend states' borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.

Even before the Arizona case, Roberts and some of his colleagues had taken steps to minimize differences based on politics and ideology. Earlier this term the justices issued unanimous, incremental decisions in disputes over Texas voting districts that civil rights advocates said would dilute Latino voting power; over when employees of churches and other religious organizations may sue for bias; and over constitutional safeguards for police use of GPS tracking devices.

While the court did not fully side with President Barack Obama's administration in the Arizona immigration battle, it gave the Democratic president more than might have been expected. “The case reaffirms the primacy of the federal government over immigration in broad strokes,” said Temple University law professor Peter Spiro.

An Olive Branch

In narrowly construing the provision requiring police to ask people they stop to verify their immigration status, Kennedy offered an olive branch to the administration and civil rights groups. He warned state authorities not to use the law to delay the release of people or to target minor offenders — for example, jaywalkers who cannot produce identification.

“It would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence, without federal direction and supervision,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy also emphasized that the law could be challenged in a future case on other constitutional grounds, such as whether it violates equal protection or due process guarantees. The decision in Arizona vs. United States turned on the question of state versus federal power.

1 Comment
June 28, 2012    george@
Why are we polarized over the insurance mandate when it actually makes us pay our medical bills; and gives help and dignity to millions of uninsured Americans?
"The insurance mandate is socialism, plain and simple."
If it's socialism, you'd have to buy it from the government, which would also tell you what doctor or hospital to go to. But you can buy health insurance from anybody, and you can get treated by the doctor and hospital you want. What's socialist about that?
"Can't you see, the government is making us buy insurance. We have no choice in the matter."
Do you have a choice not to get hurt, or not to get sick? Why then do you want a choice not to have insurance to pay for it when you do?
States in fact already have an individual mandate for car insurance, and they have been putting uninsured drivers in jail for years.
"That's different. Driving is a privilege."
Then free health care must be a right in your book. Maybe this idea came from hospitals continuing to treat the uninsured the last half century.
The trade off to us living in a civilized society is that we have to follow rules we don't agree with. In return, we get great many things, including goods and services that otherwise would be unavailable. But, we still have to pay for them. The mandate makes sure that we do.
What's wrong with that?
Write a Comment
CAPTCHA Code Image
Type in image code
Change the code
 Receive China Post promos
 Respond to this email
Subscribe  |   Advertise  |   RSS Feed  |   About Us  |   Career  |   Contact Us
Sitemap  |   Top Stories  |   Taiwan  |   China  |   Business  |   Asia  |   World  |   Sports  |   Life  |   Arts & Leisure  |   Health  |   Editorial  |   Commentary
Travel  |   Movies  |   TV Listings  |   Classifieds  |   Bookstore  |   Getting Around  |   Weather  |   Guide Post  |   Student Post  |   English Courses  |   Terms of Use  |   Sitemap
  chinapost search