Supreme Court Passes on Case on Tuition Break for Illegals

[LAPhil]

This morning's L.A. Times says otherwise. Something's weird about this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4277083.story

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

This morning's L.A. Times says otherwise. Something's weird about this:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4277083.story

Of course the open borders lobby is touting this as a "ruling" for their side. Somehow the courts refusal to review the case is being interpreted by mass immigration proponents as being a ruling on the merits of their case.

The court refused to say why it wouldn't take it up. That's chickenshit justice

[Ayatollahgondola]

If you visit the link, you'll see that no decision was issued in that case. Looking further, you'll see that it was denied review. Wesley Snipes appeal was also denied review. The justices do not believe it is worthy of their time, as their was likely not enough of a point of law to consider.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

[LAPhil]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

If you visit the link, you'll see that no decision was issued in that case. Looking further, you'll see that it was denied review. Wesley Snipes appeal was also denied review. The justices do not believe it is worthy of their time, as their was likely not enough of a point of law to consider.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

Then why does today's L.A. Times article say this?

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington— The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing California to continue granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation, as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.

The high court's action Monday upholds a California Supreme Court ruling last year that said the state's policy is legal because it grants in-state tuition on the basis of students' graduation from California high schools, not on their citizenship. A conservative immigration-law group appealed the decision, arguing that the discount — worth as much as $23,000 annually at University of California schools — was preferential treatment that violated federal law.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

Then why does today's L.A. Times article say this?

Reporting from Los Angeles and Washington— The U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing California to continue granting reduced, in-state tuition to college students who are illegal immigrants is likely to bolster similar proposals across the nation, as well as a California measure to provide financial aid for the undocumented.

The high court's action Monday upholds a California Supreme Court ruling last year that said the state's policy is legal because it grants in-state tuition on the basis of students' graduation from California high schools, not on their citizenship. A conservative immigration-law group appealed the decision, arguing that the discount — worth as much as $23,000 annually at University of California schools — was preferential treatment that violated federal law.

Well, it's just propaganda. The court didn't take the case up. Why, they didn't say. It may bolster granting in state tuition in other states, but it does not have to. The previous rulings just said it was in line with California law. Other states are not restricted by California law

[LAPhil]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

Well, it's just propaganda. The court didn't take the case up. Why, they didn't say. It may bolster granting in state tuition in other states, but it does not have to. The previous rulings just said it was in line with California law. Other states are not restricted by California law

Look, I know the L.A. Times is pretty biased, but I don't think they would just make up a story out of whole cloth. It does look like they were wrong, but I'm wondering where they got their information from. I hope they print a retraction when the truth comes out.

[LAPhil]

Rather than speculate any further, I sent this e-mail to the two writers of the L.A. Times article:

Larry Gordon/David Savage:

Your story in today's L.A. Times about the U.S. Supreme Court deciding to uphold California's policy of allowing in-state tuition for illegal immigrants is directly contradicted by this story from 6/6 which states the Court declined to hear the case:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1OWYZSeyv

I'd like to know what's going on here. Where are you getting your information?