Last month the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law that was the jurisprudential equivalent of playing the iPhone game Paper Toss with the difficulty level set to “stupid easy”. 

Swish! Nothing but the bottom of the garbage can. 

The justices’ said that, Arizona’s issues with illegal immigrants aside, “the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” 

The ruling had residual effects here in Alabama, where the Republican-dominated Legislature wrote a law similar to Arizona’s, one that was also designed to usurp federal control over immigration policy. I think the word all the boys in Montgomery are looking for these days is “Oops.”  

Sen. Phil Williams and I debated this issue in January. During a collaborative “Middle of the Road” article penned by the two of us I wrote, “I believe the court system’s participation in this process could have been made unnecessary if only the Republican majority had done a better job from the get-go.”  

Williams disagreed: “This bill was written, re-written, researched and debated, for years before even making it to the floor. The fact that the Obama administration wishes to challenge it … should be an indication to the vast majority of conservative Alabamians that the Legislature is on the right track.” 

Unfortunately those tracks led off a legislative cliff, according to a majority of the highest court in the land. 

But I’m not writing this column to congratulate myself for being right or chide Sen. Williams for being wrong. I’ve met Williams on several occasions and I know him to be an honest, intelligent and decent man. I fully expect when I see him that he’ll say to me, without (very much) prodding, “Oops.” 

What really has me scratching my head is why so many of Sen. Williams’ Republican peers have released public statements that imply their unconstitutional efforts were proper to begin with. A few of them went so far as to imply, quite erroneously, that the Supreme’s Court decision validated their efforts.  

Here are a few examples of what I am talking about, with my analysis (and occasional snide comments, both in italics) based on a few minutes of Internet research. 

From House Speaker Mike Hubbard: “The Court’s decision to uphold the real teeth of Arizona's illegal immigration law is a victory for Alabama.” You might want to stick to sports information if that’s all you know about the law, Mr. Speaker. There’s only one tiny aspect of the Arizona law that remains in place, and it’s hanging by a thread. 

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley added this comment: “The core of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law remains.” Bentley refers to the same item as Hubbard: the high court’s decision to allow the “show me your papers” section of the Arizona law to remain in place, until it is challenged in court.  

Republican Party Chairman Bill Armistead had the most hypocritical press release of the day: “Today’s ruling … is yet another reminder of President Obama’s failure to lead.” Fair enough. But to that list you’ll need to add the five guys who sat in the Oval Office before Obama—three of them from the GOP—along with Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby and whole pile of other Washington Republicans going back generations. 

The one Alabama Republican I heard from who actually sounded like he knew what the hell he was talking about was Attorney General Luther Strange. Apparently, Strange thought it prudent to read the Supreme Court’s opinion before issuing a public comment. What a novel concept. 

Here’s what Strange had to say: “Hopefully, today’s decision will spur the federal government to enforce the rule of law in the immigration arena.” Well said. This fight was waged incorrectly. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s job, as the Constitution clearly states. The Republican Party should focus on making the feds do their job instead of undertaking futile attempts to write legislation that is destined to fail.