{"id":15312,"date":"2012-06-25T16:09:52","date_gmt":"2012-06-25T16:09:52","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2012-06-25T16:09:52","modified_gmt":"2012-06-25T16:09:52","slug":"confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

RUSH: You know, this is how — I don\u2019t know, silly. It may not be silly. First blush, it seems silly to me. This is how silly it is. I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer tell me today, “Hey, Rush, don\u2019t worry about this Arizona business. If you\u2019re the Supreme Court and you\u2019re gonna strike down Obamacare<\/a>, you\u2019d go ahead and protect Obama in a previous ruling so that you save the court\u2019s image.” The theory being that they gave Obama most of what he wanted on Arizona \u2019cause they\u2019re gonna skin him alive when it comes to health care. Who knows. There\u2019s no way of knowing. But people are grasping at straws out there because everybody\u2019s confused.<\/p>\n

I felt so bad today — by the way, hi, folks, El Rushbo here at the Limbaugh Institute. Great to have you. It\u2019s a full week of broadcast excellence: 800-282-2882 if you want to be on the program.<\/p>\n

I felt so badly for Shannon Bream, who was the Supreme Court steps reporter this morning. The ruling came out, and they\u2019re tossing it to her, and it\u2019s so confusing until you\u2019ve had time to get into it, that it was impossible to dissect this. She gave it the best she had, and it was good, but I was just glad I wasn\u2019t her. To have to explain this thing the moment it\u2019s been released, 70-some-odd pages.<\/line><\/p>\n

Here\u2019s where we are on this. This is essentially what happened. The Supreme Court struck down Arizona\u2019s requirement for aliens to carry registration papers. They struck down the law\u2019s application of criminal penalties for employing illegal aliens, and the authorization of warrantless arrests for deportable crimes. However, this is where it gets confusing because they broke this thing down into four provisions. However, all eight of the justices voted to allow the mandatory immigration check requirement to go into effect. It was unanimous, eight to zip. What\u2019s-her-face, Kagan, recused herself from this case. And that\u2019s what everybody thinks this case was about. Most people don\u2019t know about these other three provisions.<\/p>\n

Most people think that the Arizona immigration case was about whether or not the cops can stop somebody and demand that they prove their status, and the court upheld that. Now, the other three provisions are not insignificant. It can be said that the regime won three out of four. And this one, this fourth provision, hangs by a thread because the court said that even though we\u2019re gonna allow the cops to stop people, do whatever they want to do — this is the stop-and-the-check documents provision — they upheld it for now, but they, in the ruling, invited litigation on that provision down the road if some kind of perceived violations take place.<\/p>\n

So it could end up that this is gonna be challenged, and it\u2019ll be lost. Can you imagine if the states were not free to stop people and ask if they\u2019re here illegally? That could end up being the case because the fourth provision that was upheld, the thing everybody thought this case was about, the court invited litigation on it. So I don\u2019t know, folks. It\u2019s getting to the point here where you could say — and we had Chief Justice Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals on these three provisions, and it basically wipes out states, just gives the federal government total purview over pretty much everything.<\/p>\n

Now, as I said, Arizona\u2019s requirement for police officers to make reasonable efforts to determine the immigration status of people detained for other infractions was upheld, and this was the most reported on and discussed provision of the law. Most of the hysteria on the left regarding Arizona\u2019s law was directed at this provision, and that\u2019s what everybody really thought this law was about. Arizona\u2019s law stipulates that in order to for its provisions to apply, a law enforcement officer must first make a lawful stop, a lawful detention, a lawful arrest in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city, town or — so basically the state of Arizona can stop people and demand that they prove their immigration status or their immigrant status, but that is subject to further legislation.<\/p>\n

The court upheld, for now, the provision allowing local cops to check status. They upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained. Ice cream parlors are not de facto detention centers for illegals, so the president lost on that point. Snerdley: “What are you talking about, ice cream parlors?” Well, April 28, 2010, in Ottumwa, Iowa, Indian Hills Community College, Obama had a town meeting and he got this question. “I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish this country.”<\/p>\n

OBAMA: This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can imagine if you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now, suddenly, if you don\u2019t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you\u2019re gonna be harassed. That\u2019s something that could potentially happen. That\u2019s not the right way to go.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So the court upheld for now the provision allowing local cops to check status, upheld the provision requiring a check of immigration status for people otherwise detained. And ice cream parlors are not now de facto detention centers. So Obama lost the ice cream parlor provision. Look, even the wise Latina herself, Sonia Sotomayor, voted to uphold stop-and-check. All morning long when they came out with four provisions in the ruling, I was asking myself, how many people even knew that there were three other provisions besides this one? The only provision anybody ever talked about was the one that was upheld. Now, the attorney general of Arizona, and, by the way, Governor Brewer, she\u2019s released a statement calling it a big win, which you would expect. On CNN this morning, John King talked to the Attorney General Tom Horne, and his thoughts on the matter are thus.<\/p>\n

HORNE: You can always have an applied challenge later on. But I think it\u2019s a big win because this was the big issue, which is the requirement that a police officer who legally stops or arrests someone and has reasonable suspicion the person is here illegally must check with ICE. He doesn\u2019t have discretion; he must check. I\u2019ve been predicting we would win that one. The other three, there was very little discussion at oral arguments over, so it was kind of hard to predict. But the other three, I think, are minor compared to the big controversial issue, which was the requirement that police officers who lawfully stop or arrest someone and have reasonable suspicion the person is here illegally must check with ICE as to the status of that person.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Right. And again, I don\u2019t mean to be redundant, but there\u2019s so much confusion I want to remind you that the court left open (wide open) the litigation aspects of that ruling. For example, the cops in Arizona could stop somebody this afternoon and that person could sue on the basis it was illegal or violated some right or whatever. It could be litigated. And, depending on how that goes, the fourth provision here could fall. Well, theoretically it could, but they vacated it back to the Ninth Circus, essentially.<\/p>\n

They basically told the Ninth Circus, “It\u2019s your ball game here if this thing comes up again.” That\u2019s where it would be litigated. And, yeah, it could end up at the Supreme Court, depending on what the Ninth Circus happens to do. It\u2019s all guesswork for now. For example, if Obama… Here\u2019s the way to understand it. If Obama… That\u2019s President Kardashian if you\u2019re under 25. If President Kardashian were arrested for driving without a license, say, in Kenya, would he object to them checking to see if he\u2019s a Kenyan citizen or not?<\/p>\n

His grandparents were in Kenya before most people were in Kenya, just like people were in the ice cream parlors in Arizona before there was an Arizona. That\u2019s what he said in Ottumwa, Iowa. These people were in Arizona before there was an Arizona. And Obama, I am sure, has got relatives in Kenya before there was a Kenya. Now, the Supreme Court doesn\u2019t need to invite further lawsuits. The ACLU and La Raza would have sued over this anyway, but they did specifically mention it. Jeffrey Toobin, the ace legal analyst at CNN… By the way, did anybody…? I didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

I TiVo\u2019d it. Well, I DVR\u2019d it. I don\u2019t have TiVo. I DVR\u2019d it, but I didn\u2019t watch it. Anybody watch the new HBO show called The Newsroom or something? (interruption) What did you think? (interruption) You didn\u2019t like it? Yeah, it\u2019s one of these introspective things. It\u2019s Aaron Sorkin, who wrote this thing. It\u2019s what he… I actually saw, in the voluminous things I read yesterday (I don\u2019t remember what it was, but it was Washington Post or some noteworthy place), a piece suggesting that this show is the model for what CNN needs to do to return to form. It said that Aaron Sorkin, in his brilliance, has written the script for CNN\u2019s return to relevance, if they just do what he wrote.<\/p>\n

Now, this show on HBO is about a news anchor in a newsroom. And there\u2019s a formula now to go after Republicans. And that is like this anchor is a deranged lunatic at show open. He goes nuts. He\u2019s in a journalism seminar at some university (Northwestern, I think) and some student asks him about greatness of America. He says, “There\u2019s nothing great about America! America\u2019s not great anymore. We\u2019re not great anymore,” and he launches into this diatribe. And it\u2019s the thing that refocuses his career. He\u2019d just been a teleprompter reader up to that point, and that focuses his career.<\/p>\n

It gives the executive producer (and ex-girlfriend, by the way) a chance to reformat the show using this guy\u2019s new-found expressiveness. And he is, of course, a Republican ticked off at his own party. That\u2019s how they do it. He\u2019s a moderate Republican ticked off at the extremism of his own party. So, anyway, I just had that fly off of the top of my head, since we got CNN bites here today. I think it\u2019s amazing. CNN is in such trouble that somebody really thinks that a fictional television show is the model for their return to glory. Anyway, Jeff Toobin, the ace legal beagle at CNN, was asked by John King this morning, “Well, what do you think here, Jeff? The Arizona attorney general says it\u2019s a big win upholding that fourth provision. What do you think, Jeff?”<\/p>\n

TOOBIN: I think he\u2019s right [and] that this was what\u2019s known as a “facial challenge,” which means the federal government asserted that these laws were unconstitutional in all circumstances. As you\u2019ve been discussing, three of the four provisions were found to be unconstitutional; were found to be a violation of the federal government\u2019s prerogatives when it comes to immigration. However, the most controversial part of the law has been upheld. The so-called show-us-your-papers provision has been upheld. I think it is genuinely a mixed verdict.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Even now, folks, people are trying to understand it and analyze it. It\u2019s gonna be later today or tomorrow before libs decide. Like the ACLU\u2019s got their statement out, but it\u2019s full of maybes and what-ifs. All the leftists are looking at this trying to figure out the best way to massage it for Obama. Not the country. As always, it\u2019s about Obama. So, we\u2019re not gonna get the full liberal take on this for a little while.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: I want to go back to this Obama sound bite from Ottumwa, Iowa. He was at Indian Hills Community College at a town hall meeting. And he got this question. “I was wondering what your plan was for our undocumented workers who helped establish our country.” Now, that question obviously is loaded. The meaning of the question is that it was undocumented people who built this country. What about us, the undocumented? This country was built by people that are now being penalized, blah, blah, blah. And Obama gave this ice cream parlor example, and it\u2019s a classic illustration of deceit.<\/p>\n

OBAMA: This law that just passed in Arizona, which I think is a poorly conceived law, you can imagine if you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don\u2019t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you\u2019re gonna be harassed. That\u2019s something that could potentially happen. That\u2019s not the right way to go.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, classic deceit, this ice cream parlor example. It was premeditated deceit. Police were never empowered to interrogate anybody about having their papers. The police can\u2019t go into an ice cream parlor and scout out the place and see some people that they might think are illegal and demand to see papers. That can only happen after an arrest or lawful detention, and an arrest on a legitimate violation, traffic violation or what have you. You\u2019re not violating a law eating ice cream at an ice cream parlor. So you had here Obama deliberately distorting this Arizona law to divide. It\u2019s painted the police as a bunch of sinister bigots.<\/p>\n

But, you know, the political ramifications of this… I\u2019m reading after the court decision was announced this morning. You can go to certain places, you can find establishment Republicans wringing their hands in frustration because they think any discussion of this is going to lose the Latino vote. I know the objective of politicians is to win elections. This is one of the problems we conservatives have with politics. We want to win elections. So should we pander, should we make it sound like we\u2019re for undocumented people being allowed to stay here, amnesty, all these things, just to win elections? Because that\u2019s what the Republican establishment essentially wants to happen. They\u2019re not saying it directly, but we\u2019ve gotten to the point now where any public statement that\u2019s oriented toward upholding the rule of law is considered hurtful to Republican electoral chances. I don\u2019t know how you get around that. What are we supposed to do? Compromise on the law for the sake of winning elections?<\/p>\n

Now, there are people in the Republican establishment that will tell you, “Yeah, it\u2019s exactly what we\u2019re supposed to do.” Then we become no different than the left, pandering to this coalition with this message, that coalition with another message, a coalition over there with that interest group, what have you. You and I have always believed that standing for the rule of law… what bothers me is the assumption or the presumption that every Hispanic in this country, every Latino is for breaking the law. I just don\u2019t believe it. I just don\u2019t believe that\u2019s the case.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re of the opinion that every Hispanic voter in this country is demanding that there be no law about illegal immigration, that any Hispanic person from anywhere in the world should be allowed to come here, and if you don\u2019t support that, I\u2019m voting the other guys. Now, I could be dead wrong. Maybe all Hispanics are that way. But I just don\u2019t believe it. Well, I know I don\u2019t believe it because I know several Hispanics who every bit believe in the rule of law as much as I do. And they consider themselves Americans, not Hispanic or Latino or whatever. They consider themselves Americans.<\/p>\n

Every issue the moderates, the consultants, the establishment say, “You better pipe down. You\u2019re gonna hurt Republican electoral chances. You\u2019re gonna hurt the Republican brand.” Standing for the rule of law hurts your brand? Well, if that\u2019s true, then all\u2019s lost anyway. If standing for the rule of law is a penalty, then there\u2019s no reason for any law. Can\u2019t just cherry-pick which ones you want. So racial special interests were to pander to what their whims are, gender special interests, sexual orientation special interests, you name it. Ethnic special interests.<\/p>\n

We either pander to everybody or pander to nobody. Equal pandering under the law. I don\u2019t know. If that\u2019s what we have to do to win, we\u2019ve lost the country. I just don\u2019t believe we\u2019ve lost the country. I think these are techniques or efforts to intimidate us into shutting up. ‘Cause everybody wants to win elections. It\u2019s like the old saw: better not be critical of Obama. The independents, they don\u2019t like that. They\u2019re gonna consider you a racist. The last poll I looked at, Obama\u2019s losing independents in droves, big time.<\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: In his dissent, Antonin Scalia in the Arizona case, quote, “If securing its territory is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.” (repeats) “If securing its territory … is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: You know, this is how — I don\u2019t know, silly. It may not be silly. First blush, it seems silly to me. This is how silly it is. I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer tell me today, “Hey, Rush, don\u2019t worry about this Arizona business. If you\u2019re the Supreme Court and you\u2019re […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nConfusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: You know, this is how — I don\u2019t know, silly. It may not be silly. First blush, it seems silly to me. This is how silly it is. I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer tell me today, “Hey, Rush, don\u2019t worry about this Arizona business. If you\u2019re the Supreme Court and you\u2019re […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"GeorgePrayias\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/\",\"name\":\"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-06-25T16:09:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-06-25T16:09:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4\",\"name\":\"GeorgePrayias\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"GeorgePrayias\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/GeorgePrayias\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: You know, this is how — I don\u2019t know, silly. It may not be silly. First blush, it seems silly to me. This is how silly it is. I had a lawyer, a powerful, influential lawyer tell me today, “Hey, Rush, don\u2019t worry about this Arizona business. If you\u2019re the Supreme Court and you\u2019re […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"GeorgePrayias","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#website","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/ObamaImmigrationSupremeCourt.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/","name":"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2012-06-25T16:09:52+00:00","dateModified":"2012-06-25T16:09:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/daily\/2012\/06\/25\/confusion_over_scotus_arizona_ruling\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Confusion Over SCOTUS Arizona Ruling"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#\/schema\/person\/9a33276eb9dc5b6d3f8218957f30e6b4","name":"GeorgePrayias","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d290ab65e2eaca3719268528f83b85bf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"GeorgePrayias"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/GeorgePrayias\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15312"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}