THE RULE OF LAW & POLITICS.
It may be true; and it can be false.
What is wrong in America is for the United States Supreme Court to dabble in politics; and what is serious about that is that members of the court can do so in privacy or even in secrecy, without anyone ever knowing about their thoughts.
From the look so obvious in the the ruling of the Arizona immigration law, the court has one foot in Arizona and the other in Washington D.C.; and if the governor of the state, Gov. Jan Brewer, is reacting adversely in any way to yesterday's ruling by the court, then she is completely out of her mind. She has plenty to be "thankful for" all the same.
The defendant, which is the Federal government in the Arizona case, already has the provisions that the court ruled in its favor on the the law books, and so there is no real argument about the decision, except a part that permits local law enforcement to assist in immigration laws. The government still holds the ace card.
The look that is being discussed here is making both sides of a dispute to have the idea that victory in a case is not the only option; but that one can lose part of a litigation and still be able to claim as winning a portion that matters. The end result becomes a "tie" for both sides.
On one hand, the action of the court is seen as true refereeing, which is the basic responsibility of judges to draw a clear line between two contestants; but they can also split a decision for both sides to have very little or nothing to say about it.
Such a decision is not portraying that Arizona's case is a waste of time; but that the state can somehow indulge in a federal jurisdiction, such as immigration, if necessary. While, on the other hand, the government has to wait and see how the state handles that portion; and perhaps raise an objection in court, if it (government) finds the state to be overstepping its bounds.
Justices are people too, and they have their political leanings; and to separate those sentiments from their work will be extremely difficult; however, that is what they have been appointed to do, to resolve difficult problems without personal feelings.
Yet, one cannot say that the Arizona ruling is not a just one; but the justices can rightly throw out the case and lambaste the governor for infiltrating federal autonomy. Instead, she is being dealt not with a blow, but a server to do federal work.
The decision smacks of an appeasement by the justices for the two sides; something which the Attorney General Eric Holder representing the federal government, has been least expecting during the whole process.
Like many people, his view is one that will prompt the court to inform the governor that her rights are limited to her state, when it comes to Federal immigration laws; but that will not happen; and that tends to embolden the governor to continue in her rhetoric against the government and about her controversial immigration laws.
That is what the ruling does, by allowing a governor of a state to belittle the federal government; and if that is not playing pure politics by some of the justices to arrive at their combined and final decision, nothing thereof does.