WASHINGTON, DC — As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Arizona’s “papers, please!” immigration law, supporters rallied outside with hate-filled jabs at Latinos and immigrants in general.

Though outnumbered by opponents of SB 1070 at least 20-to-1, supporters made up for their timid numbers with unabashed hate and racism. Among the things SB 1070 proponents said that were overheard by ThinkProgress:

• “Go back to your third-world armpit if you don’t like it!”
• SB 1070 supporter, pointing to SB 1070 opponents, many of whom are Latino: “We can read, unlike some of the people over there”
• Select lyrics from a song called “God Save Arizona” that compared Attorney General Eric Holder to Japanese bombers at Pearl Harbor: “On a clear Sunday morning 1941…they sank the Arizona in a cloud of fire and smoke…And years later in 2010, Arizona is a target once again…Attacked by drug lords, terrorists, and our own Attorney General”
• A button that read, “Don’t Blame me… I voted for the American.”
• “Mexico doesn’t even want them.”
• SB 1070 supporter to a nearby opponent: “Why don’t you put that sign in Spanish?”
• SB 1070 supporter, pointing to SB 1070 opponents, many of whom are Latino: “Those people over there are trespassing!”
• “Obama can’t even come up with a decent birth certificate.”

Watch a few of the remarks:

In a recent campaign speech, Senate candidate John Raese (R-WV) offered a full-throated defense of Ted Nugent’s recent threatening comments about President Barack Obama and lambasted the Secret Service for taking the comments seriously.

The Huffington Post posted a portion of his speech, in which Raese said:

RAESE: How many of you remember Ted Nugent? I do. Ted Nugent came to West Virginia to help me in 2010. He came along with Sarah Palin and we had a wonderful event. And we had a wonderful event. Now I’m with Josh Sowards. Josh, how are you today? Josh is a former Mountaineer basketball player. He played in a lot of those good [West Virginia Mountaineers basketball coach] Bob Huggins games that we all sat at many Lincoln Day dinners when people said ‘Time out, we gotta listen to the Mountaineers beat Kentucky.’ Remember all that stuff? He was a part of that. Now Josh, if Bob Huggins came in and told you that we’re are in a vicious game against Penn State and we are gonna go right out on that court and we’re gonna kill’em, would the FBI want to investigate Bob Huggins? I don’t think so. That’s called a figure of speech. Controlling the people. Remember that, controlling the people. Ted Nugent is a patriot. Ted Nugent is somebody that’s firm in this country. And when you see scenarios that break down like that scenario, it’s a concern, isn’t it.

Watch the video:

But Nugent didn’t say that Republicans should “kill” Democrats in the general election. He said “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Virtually all 63,500 Google hits for the phrase “dead or in jail by this time next year” are references to Nugent’s comment, so it is hard to see how that constitutes a “figure of speech.”

Nugent has not been charged with any crime — merely interviewed by the Secret Service so they could be certain he was not a threat to the safety of the president. Forty three men have served as president of the United States. Four have been assassinated and several others — including Obama — have survived assassination attempts. Because America is rooted in the belief that ballots, not bullets, are the way to settle political disagreements, any threats to the safety of the president or others directly in line to be president are a crime and must be taken seriously by the officers tasked with protecting their safety.

It is hard to imagine many West Virginian’s would share Raese’s opinion of what constitutes “controlling the people.”

The good news at today’s Supreme Court argument on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law is that the justices appeared likely to strike some of the law down. States are not permitted to set their own immigration policy because immigration, like all other foreign policy matters, is reserved to the national government. There are probably not five votes to eliminate this rule altogether and allow Arizona to criminalize the mere act of being an undocumented immigrant.

The bad news is that the “show me your papers” provision requiring police to determine the immigration status of many people they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is not in the country legally, is likely to be upheld. And it is likely to be upheld due to a fairly strained reading of federal law.

A majority of the Court appeared sympathetic to Republican superlawyer Paul Clement’s argument that, even if the Court does not eliminate the longstanding rule against states’ setting their own immigration policy, federal law effectively deputizes Arizona to seek out and discover undocumented immigrants within its borders. Under the provision Clement relies on, states are permitted to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” So Clement claims that SB 1070 simply “cooperates” with the federal government by helping to identify undocumented immigrants that federal officials can then detain or deport.

There are a number of problems with this argument, but the most important one is that Arizona is not “cooperating” with the Attorney General in anything — a reality that is pretty conclusively demonstrated by the fact that the Attorney General is suing the state of Arizona to get them to stop enforcing SB 1070. It is a bizarre form of “cooperation” that leads your partner in an endeavor to seek a federal court order to get you to stop trying to lend a hand.

An equally important problem, which Solicitor General Don Verrilli relied upon heavily in Court, is that it’s also not true that federal law calls for the kind of sweeping “attrition through enforcement” regime that SB 1070 expressly states is its goal. The federal government does not deport people who are likely to be tortured in their home country, for example, or many victims of domestic violence. Likewise, federal immigration law delegates authority to set immigration enforcement priorities to the executive branch of the federal government, and the executive branch has used that authority to focus enforcement on high priority groups such as violent criminals and repeat offenders. SB 1070 forces the federal government to waste limited resources deciding how to handle low-priority immigrants that it has no intention of pursuing enforcement actions against — resources that could instead be spent on higher priority targets such as violent felons.

One silver lining came early in the argument when several justices, including crucial swing vote Justice Kennedy, appeared bothered by the fact that the “show me your papers” provision might permit Arizona to detain an individual longer than they would normally be detained while the state is trying to figure out whether or not the person is undocumented. A few of these questions even suggested that the provision could be unconstitutional if it extends the period when someone can be detained. Chief Justice Roberts, however, also seemed to find a way to resolve this dilemma that the Court’s conservatives could find appealing.
Read more

Despite receiving over $100,000 in corporate PAC contributions, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed earlier this month that, “I don’t have any corporate contributions into my campaign.”

King made the remarks during a town hall meeting on April 6 in Jefferson, Iowa. Pressed by a constituent about the impact of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, King claimed he had “not dug into” the decision yet, but conceded that he’s “not comfortable with the result.” Still, he claimed that his own campaign was free from the influence of corporate contributions.

CONSTITUENT: The whole question of what’s wrong with our country here is corruption. Money buying elections. Money buying corporate messages.

KING: That’s another thing. I will listen to him. I just want to tell you. I don’t have any corporate contributions into my campaign.

Watch it (relevant section begins at 1:25):

A cursory glance at King’s fundraising reports this year shows maxed-out contributions from the PACs of many corporations, including Koch Industries, American Crystal Sugar, AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway, Exxon, First American Bank, Kirke Financial Services, Mail Services LLC, Mobren Biological, Silverstone Group, Sukup Manufacturing, and a wide array of corporate trade associations.

King is technically correct that corporations haven’t contributed directly to his campaign. Federal election law prohibits corporations from making such contributions to any candidate. However, corporations establish their own PACs precisely so that their leadership and investors can donate to candidates. King’s campaign has benefited immensely from these corporate PACs, receiving more than $100,000 for his reelection bid.

Last week, Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky sparked national outrage when he compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. In response to this indefensible statement, a large group of Notre Dame professors called for Jenky to either apologize to Obama or resign from the Catholic university’s board. As of this writing, 84 professors are listed as signatories to the letter:

As you will be aware, the Bishop Daniel Jenky, a member of Notre Dame’s Board of Fellows, has been widely quoted for a homily in which he described President Obama as “seem[ing] intent on following a similar path” to Hitler and Stalin. Jenky’s comments demonstrate ignorance of history, insensitivity to victims of genocide and absence of judgment.

We accept that Jenky’s comments are protected by the First Amendment, but we find it profoundly offensive that a member of our beloved University’s highest authority, the Board of Fellows, should compare the president’s actions with those whose genocidal policies murdered tens of millions of people, including the specific targeting of Catholics, Jews and other minorities for their faith.

We request that you issue a statement on behalf of the University that will definitively distance Notre Dame from Jenky’s incendiary statement. Further, we feel that it would be in the best interest of Notre Dame if Jenky resigned from the University’s Board of Fellows if he is unwilling to renounce loudly and publicly this destructive analogy.

A public petition calling for Jenky to apologize has also received nearly 14,000 signatures. You can sign that petition here.