intended their motives may be, no matter how burdensome is the problem with illegal immigration in their states, only the federal government can enforce in a traditional way federal immigration law. bill: a quick and pointed question, how is alabama different from arizona? or are you arguing that that doesn t even matter now? i don t think it matters after reading this opinion, because the lynchpin of what alabama and arizona did was the same. we are going to stand in the choose of the feds, because they are not doing their job. the supreme court has sadie finance tivoli, witsaid definitively, they may not do that. jamie: judge, the decision is by justice kennedy, does that mean anything? maybe he s having a busy week, jaime i don t know. jamie: he s traditionally the swing. he is the swing vote between the four liberal justices and the four conservative ones. we of course are all waiting and i defects this in your wonderfully delicious question,
they won t put a stop to. bill: now we wait to see whether or not that has a legal challenge. that means probably this afternoon in arizona someone will be stopped for jaywalking. bill: it may be 12 noon arizona time. someone could be stopped for jaywalking or dwi. bill: there are numerous states going through their own definition of this law. alabama, you think about georgia, there was a challenge in indiana, south carolina. does any of this today affect those laws in other states. yes, this opinion strikes at the heart of the alabama statute. i m unfamiliar with the one in georgia, but i ve read the one in alabama. both the arizona and the alabama statute presumed that where the federal government chooses not to enforce federal immigration law the states may stand in the place of the federal government and enforce the federal law as they, the states, understand it to be. today the supreme court has said, the states may not do that, no matter how well