By: Jeffrey Klein
Political Buzz Examiner

The Obama Administration, by and through its’ Solicitor General, Donald Verilli, were no doubt having a deja vu moment today, during 80 minutes of arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning against the Great State of Arizona Immigration Law.

The two key issues to be decided in this case, which have been [temporarily] blocked by a lower federal court, are provisions to bar illegal immigrants from seeking a job, and to require law enforcement [officers] to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, during course of a routine stop, according to a FOXNews article today.

More than 100 reporters were on hand in courtroom press seats, to witness these historic oral arguments, for the last case of the annual term–second in importance only to the Obamacare case argued two weeks ago, according to Reuters article today.

It should be noted that Liberal Justice Elena Kagan, the former top Obama administration lawyer at the court, [correctly] recused herself from this case, because she had worked on the matter previously–just as with the Obamacare case, from which she did not recuse herself.

This left five Conservative and three Liberal Justices presiding over the case.

As I had postulated on Monday, Donald Verilli had an uphill battle trying to bolster an obviously political position–and the Conservative Justices did not let it go unnoticed, via their questions and comments to him on the case.

The battle began with Chief Justice John Roberts interrupting Verilli during his opening statement, waving him off an attempt to argue that ‘the Arizona law would lead to ethnic and racial profiling of Hispanics.’

Roberts rightly stated that ‘profiling was not at issue in the case,’ as the DOJ specifically excluded “racial profiling” as an issue from its’ brief to the court–because the Arizona Immigration law specifically prohibits racial profiling in grueling detail–therefore rendering such an argument moot.

Therefore, Justice Roberts was correct to ‘smack down’ Verilli’s blatant attempt to interject a Liberal ‘political talking point’ into the official record of the case.

Next up, Justice Anthony Kennedy, referred to the “social and economic disruption” that states endure–the result of a flood of illegal immigrants–suggesting that states like Arizona have authority to act.

Justice Roberts, then spurned the administration’s arguments that the Arizona law conflicted with the federal system–deeming it “an effort to help [you] enforce the federal law.”

Verrilli then took another route, to argue that Arizona’s law would result in “mass incarceration” of people unlawfully present in the United States, and posed the risk of [having] “significant foreign relations problems.”

‘Conservative Justice Scalia [immediately] scoffed at Verilli’s argument, saying that those problems could be avoided by releasing the people from jail and deporting them.’

The FOXNews article reported that the Justices strongly suggested they are not buying the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn’t think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

Current estimates put the number at about 11.5 million, or about 4 percent of the U.S. population.

Authors note: This huge incursion of illegal aliens into the U.S. is also a driving force behind GOP initiation and support for photo ID law implementation in many states, as it is the only measure that can prevent illegal aliens from participating in voting fraud.

For the defense, Paul Clement, a solicitor general during Republican George W. Bush’s presidency, represented Arizona and its Republican governor, Jan Brewer.

“Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration,” arguing that enforcement attention in California and Texas has turned the Arizona border into a funnel for illegal immigrants–with a third of illegal border crossings occurring there.

He described Arizona’s law as a response to an “emergency situation,” because illegal immigrants were soaking up millions of state taxpayer dollars for health care and education, posing safety risks to ranchers, and cutting into the state’s job market.

In the end it seems clear that the Justices, across the board, realize that Arizona has a serious problem on its hands, and should have some level of sovereignty to address illegal immigration.

They also strongly suggested that they are not buying the Obama administration’s argument that the state exceeded its authority, with Chief Justice John Roberts at one point saying he doesn’t think the federal government even wants to know how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

Now, even the Liberal mainstream media is reporting that the Justices appeared to ready to uphold the provisions at issue–particularly that of requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the U.S. illegally.

Should the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare, and then against Obama in this case–the only problem standing in the way of America’s future would be Barack Obama himself.