Why Didn't John Roberts 'Stretch' to Find Arizona's Law Enforcing Federal Immigration Statutes Constitutional?

Rush LimbaughIf you gotta go into all kinds of contortions, if you got to go outside the bounds of the law to save the act, and that's what the New York Times quotes Justice Roberts saying. Justice Roberts suggested that even he didn't find the tax argument especially plausible, but he quoted Justice Holmes to explain why it was good enough. "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid," Justice Holmes wrote, that would be Oliver Wendell, "our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."This is the New York Times reporting that Roberts, "Gosh, I got to save the act. I got to save the act." So he went back and found Oliver Wendell Holmes: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."Well, excuse me, Mr. Justice Roberts, but how did that work in your Arizona finding?RUSH: It's almost as if the chief justice thinks if you can imagine that the law is constitutional, then you have to rule that it is. So now we're told that the guiding principle on the Supreme Court is we got to move heaven and earth to make sure the act is constitutional. We have to save the act. If it's the worst piece of crap ever to come out of Congress, we have to save this piece of garbage!So if you can imagine that a law could somehow be constitutional if you do this or you do that, then that's what you do. This is insane. I do. Folks, I feel like the police chief in my town just had a press conference and said, "We have changed our mission. We are now going to be facilitating people who wish to break into your property, because it's not right that you've made it so hard for them."  There's nowhere to go here. There's nowhere to turn. I have people saying, "Hey, rush, tax bills have to originate in the house. This thing originated in the Senate." It really didn't. Harry Reid took a House bill and gutted it and put Obamacare in it.But the point still is, okay, let's say that that hadn't happened. Let's say that the bill was unconstitutional because it originated in the Senate. I hate to tell you, where do we have to go to get that determined? We have to go right back to the SCOTUS. What are they gonna do, rule it unconstitutional because that happened? No. You really bring this case to us simply because the thing originated in the Senate, not the House, that's a minor point. Everybody knew that they wanted to spend the money anyway, so who cares. Well, we do. The Constitution says that this stuff has to originate in the House. Well, it's not our job to find this stuff unconstitutional. So we'll look the other way. We got nowhere to go is my point.Now, it doesn't appear to me, I know the two cases are different, but it doesn't appear to me that the chief justice went out of his way to find Arizona's immigration law constitutional. Now, I know that the Arizona law, that case was a case that was Arizona versus the regime and there was no congressional legislation per se that was being argued. But at the end of the day, it was. Federal immigration law was not being enforced. Arizona is falling apart because of it. They passed their own laws which mirrored the federal governments laws so they can enforce them. And the court said you can't.So it's not consistent. We're gonna do everything we can to make sure the act is upheld. No. Only certain acts. But in both cases, they're legislation from the people. Obamacare was legislation that came from the elected representatives of the people. And the Arizona case came from the people and their elected representatives in the state. State legislation didn't count, federal legislation. Anyway, I've about said all there is to say on this. I just wanted to get it off my chest.Great to have you back here, folks. Open line Friday. Rush Limbaugh at 1-800-282-2882."It's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." You see, in Arizona, you know what, political choices, we don't agree with your political choices, we're gonna reject your choices in Arizona.