Federal Judge Nukes Arizona Illegal Immigration Law

[Oh Shoot]

I told you the fix was in or Obama wouldn't have filed the federal lawsuit.

Federal judge ruling on federally lodged lawsuit. Seems sort of biased, eh?

FOXNews.com - Federal Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Immigration Law

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yeh, and this isn't over, by a long way.

[Guest Lathe guy]

Sorry folks! We're trying.

As for my mood right now, well it's a good thing I need to be at work for a while.

[Oh Shoot]

Sorry folks! We're trying.

As for my mood right now, well it's a good thing I need to be at work for a while.

Well, first appeal would be to the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, and considered to be the most liberal of all the Federal Circuit courts, and almost certainly would affirm the decision.

This according to Adrew Napolitano on Fox News.

Of course, O had this part sussed out, and only needed the first judge's decision to nuke this for a long long time, as it would be a couple years minimum to get all the way to SCOTUS.

- OS

[Guest SUNTZU]

This is a typical hold on any law that is under judicial review. I wouldn't get worked up over it. Laws get put on hold while reviews are made. Like restaurant carry.

[Oh Shoot]

This is a typical hold on any law that is under judicial review. I wouldn't get worked up over it. Laws get put on hold while reviews are made. Like restaurant carry.

Yes, the Arizona ruling is a stay, not final decision, but nobody expects the final decision to be any different - and there seems no timeline on a final ruling anyway.

The TN ruling was as I understand it an actual voiding of the statute, not a stay, since it was ruled as being unconstitutional. ("unconstitutionally vague"). Indeed, it was immediately eligible for appeal, unlike the AZ ruling, which can't be appealed until a final decision is made and even then, an appeal must be granted via a petition to allow it.

edit: Just saw where Gov. Brewer said will file immediate appeal. So at least SHE thinks the "stay" CAN be appealed.

- OS

Edited July 28, 2010 by OhShoot

[gnmwilliams]

I just can't get over the protesters signs saying they (as illegal aliens) won't come to Arizona if they pass the law. Kinda the point right?

[Guest HvyMtl]

Article. VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Um. Well. Arizona cannot trump Federal Law. The Supreme Court would rule the above Supremacy Clause trumps state law. And the Judge here has to, effectively, rule the same, unless the Judge loves her rulings to be overturned and mean nothing...

To quote a SCOTUS ruling: Pennsylvania vs Nelson 350 U.S. 497 (1956), itself quoting an earlier decision Charleston & Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co: 237 U.S. 597 (1915):

"When Congress has taken the particular subject matter in hand, coincidence is as ineffective as opposition, and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go."

In effect, the Constitution trumps state law. Federal law written under the Constitution trumps state law. This is well established, and has been basically since the start of our Nation.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution... But seriously, as a supporter of the Constitution of the United States, I am not surprised by this decision.

So, what then are we to do? Apparently, we are going to have to work on the Federal Level to fix this mess...

Arizona should be commended for pushing this matter. Hopefully, due to their push, something positive comes out of it... and we get the illegals out.

How? By voting in those who will actually do something, and voting those out who do not... Simple? Far from it...

Edited July 28, 2010 by HvyMtl

[Guest Lathe guy]

I just can't get over the protesters signs saying they (as illegal aliens) won't come to Arizona if they pass the law. Kinda the point right?

Did you see the ones that said "WE will not comply"?

[Guest HvyMtl]

Also, the Judge DID NOT KILL all of the law...

"A number of provisions will still go into effect as the case is litigated. Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and make it a crime to pick up day laborers." FOX News. (Bold added...)

So, not a total loss. Blocks Phoenix from not following the rules. Blocks sanctuary areas where present laws would not be enforced, and blocks one avenue illegals get employed...

[mikegideon]

Right now, "those that do not" are part of a Mexican standoff that's been going on for decades. They could proceed with immigration reform right now, and they could have 10 years ago. Who are you gonna vote in that's going to change that? I agree that Arizona turned up the heat, and good for them. Still doesn't change how Washington works, no matter who lives there.

I expected the ruling we got.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Point is - making it a hot topic - and making politicians uncomfortable until they act upon the hot topic - seems to be one of the few avenues left in this country to get things done... Sad. But true.

[Guest Lathe guy]

All of the democrats here are furious/scared.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Lathe guy

[mikegideon]

All of the democrats here are furious/scared.

I would guess they're screwed right now. Gonna be some interesting banter in the next few days. This could go real wrong for the whole Democratic party.

[Mike.357]

I wish Brewer had come out and said something to the effect of " we are going to ignore this court ruling", then order law enforcement in AZ to obey the law as it was passed by the AZ legislature.

And mikeg, I hope it goes very wrong for the Dem's. Where do they get off overruling local decisions?

[Oh Shoot]

I wish Brewer had come out and said something to the effect of " we are going to ignore this court ruling", then order law enforcement in AZ to obey the law as it was passed by the AZ legislature....

Wow, THAT might be the start of the civil war some postulate.

At least, it would likely be the first time federal troops would be deployed to enforce a federal decision over a state decision since the days of James Meridith at Ole Miss and similar.

- OS

[Mike.357]

who knows what the feds would do. I would like to see her call them out on it.

why would they send troops to enforce this when they won't do squat to enforce their own federal law?

Civil war might be coming.

[Smith]

who knows what the feds would do. I would like to see her call them out on it.

why would they send troops to enforce this when they won't do squat to enforce their own federal law?

Civil war might be coming.

That why it would go very badly for the Fed. People would clearly see that the Fed is willing to muscle up and enforce their will on a state of the union but not on illegals from another country.

Which is exactly what AZ should do. It would be the ultimate call out. If the feds tried to enforce it when they aren't enforcing other laws, they would loose on discrimination suits alone. Not to mention they could argue bias in not enforcing sanctuary cities while enforcing on AZ. The Feds could not win on any front, especially not the public opinion front. Let's see if they have the nerve.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Smith

[leroy]

....Point is - making it a hot topic - and making politicians uncomfortable until they act upon the hot topic - seems to be one of the few avenues left in this country to get things done... Sad. But true. .....

I think MvyMtl and others are dead on target here from a political perspective. All this ruling and stay will do is to make this issue more and more visible to everyone; even the casual observers. The border thing is getting worse and worse with the druglords running wild all up and down the border. It's only a matter of time until something really bad happens there that involves a US citizen (...if it hasnt already happened...). Take the time to log on to the El Paso Times newspaper website sometime and take a look ( ...i take a look most every day; there is some pretty interesting stuff there that you wont see in the big news media reports...). Combine that with the latino activists that are continuing to stir this up; and you have a Demorat recipe for disaster simply because they are the party in power now.

Most folks want the border secure, and they will be able to figure out pretty quickly that the legal wrangling is nothing but Demorat pandering. I will grant that it could be Republican pandering too, because both parties are guilty; but the Demorats "have the keys now" as the great Nobama quipped just after the election.

More than that, the Republicans should make Eric Holder the poster boy for reverse discrimination in this country; because that is who he is, and there appears to be plenty of evidence and willing acusers out there willing to say that. If things get pretty hot for him, the Demorats will toss him under the bus, because that's who polititians are. That will keep fanning the flames and give the Demorats a convenient scapegoat if they need some cover for the elections (...which i believe they will -- the polling data looks bad for the 'rats...).

If the Republicans are very smart, (...i know, that may be a silly idea...) they will keep this stirred up and in the news every day. The governor of Arizona (...God bless her--- she may be the only smart Republican [...or real statesman...] out there...) has already started it. This aint going to go away, nor will it be over before the midterm elections. I say, let the howling, retoric, and fireworks begin!!

Food for thought.

leroy

[Mark A]

1) appealing the stay seems to me to add legitimacy to the thought that the feds have power over the state in this issue

2) Ignore the stay, what is the judge going to do? Do any of us really think the military or the FBI are going to shoot citizens if they stand up for this?

[eapking]

Too bad this ruling didn't come out later, nearer to the November elections. Lots of good backlash potential at the polls. Regradless, the Dems in AZ (and hopefully everywhere) ought to be very concerned about their elections this fall.

[mcurrier]

It's almost rock and roll time.

[Guest jackdm3]

But do you really think America will impart a new and significant level of "Change"?

[Mark@Sea]

I know this;

Illegal immigration isn't a trickle, it's a flood. We might as well not have a border, Arizona justly feels it is the target of a foreign invasion, and the federal government is purposely shirking its' Constitutional responsibility for political gain.

Our deficit has more than tripled since Obama took office, and there is no sign the spending will stop. Massive tax increases are coming, massive cuts in Social Security (but you can bet they won't take less from your payroll), massive cuts in health care quality and availability, massive invasion of privacy.

Unemployment is now forecasted to continue at current levels or higher for the next 6 years, at least. If Democrats continue to extend unfunded unemployment payments, this will add another trillion dollars a year to the deficit. Uncertainty in tax, liability, finance and investment conditions virtually guarantee that small business is in trouble for the indefinite future, and large business is taking its' jobs offshore as fast as it can.

Stimulus, TARP, the unsung bailouts of Freddy and Fanny, the takeover of private corporations, banks, insurance, healthcare - all for the benefit of democrat political cronies - none of this has helped the economy. It has accelerated and deepened the depression.

Democrats have shown themselves, by and large, as racist, race-baiting, tax evading liars and thieves.

People ain't happy.

[leroy]

All:_________________

Check out this Wall Street Journal article. Link here: Susan Bolton Ruling on Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 Latest Hot-Button Issue - WSJ.com

Text here:

• 
  By JONATHAN WEISMAN And STEPHANIE SIMON
  

Jane Norton, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Colorado, had a hunch that by dinnertime Wednesday, conservative voters across the state would have heard about a federal judge blocking much of Arizona's immigration law.

PM Report: Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona Law

8:23 A federal judge blocked key sections of Arizona's tough new immigration law, granting the Obama administration's request for an injunction. Laura Meckler discusses. Also, Sarah Nassauer discusses why reality TV shows are being lured by vacation destinations in an effort to generate buzz among travelers.

She had a hunch they would be angry.

So Ms. Norton's campaign ordered up a new round of robocalls, informing voters that Ms. Norton was proud to have been endorsed by one of the immigration law's strongest advocates, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. The campaign had already called 80,000 Republican voters. Now, it planned to call 100,000 more, said Josh Penry, Ms. Norton's campaign manager.

The calls to Colorado voters Wednesday night were just one sign that the federal ruling in Arizona is likely to ripple through this heated campaign season.

Republicans quickly denounced both the ruling and the Obama Justice Department for challenging the law in the first place. Some said the ruling would further energize voters who are angry about what they see as federal overreach on health care and other issues.

Rep. John Boozman, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Arkansas, said he expected the judge's ruling to further rile voters and motivate them to reject Democratic incumbents. "It's a defining issue," Mr. Boozman said. Mr. Boozman takes questions at every town hall, he said, and "this will come up at every one."

Democrats, divided on the issue and running against stiff political headwinds, were unsure how the ruling would play out.

Some called it an unhelpful distraction from the campaigns they have been building around jobs, economic themes and border enforcement. Pat Waak, chairwoman of the Colorado Democratic Party, said candidates can't win in the fall if they aren't talking about jobs and the economy.

"We're not talking about credit-card companies not being able to take advantage of you, or student loans," she said. "We have to be the messengers of what affects your life."

Other Democrats said U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton had usefully inserted herself between the two political lightning rods—the Arizona law and the Obama administration.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.), who had encouraged the Justice Department suit, said Democrats can now say that however one feels about the Arizona law, major elements of it have been put into question by a judge. "This helps Democrats talk about solutions," he said in an interview.

The judge's ruling doesn't order Congress to act, and lawmakers have shown little interest this year in tackling the issue. But if immigrant-rights advocates and anti-illegal immigration activists agree the current system is broken, they appear to have no choice but to press for congressional action

.

"I'm hoping that this has turbocharged that understanding and sent it from Arizona straight to Capitol Hill, where we really need to be having this discussion," said Angela Kelley of the Center for American Progress, a group with close ties to the White House. She is an advocate for an immigration overhaul that includes a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. "At some point, you've got to eat your vegetables," she said.

But for Democrats, the turbocharge might be at the polls, and to their disadvantage. William Gheen, president of the anti-illegal immigrant Americans for Legal Immigration, called Wednesday for all congressional incumbents to be ousted in November.

"There's a wave of anger sweeping across this nation today as people of all races and political affiliations feel that we the people have been betrayed by this president and this judge," he said.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, an anti-illegal immigration firebrand who is running for Colorado governor on a third-party ticket, predicted the ruling would motivate conservatives, tea-party activists and all voters who "are so sick of the federal government."

"This action will stoke the fires of states' rights throughout this country, and well it should," Mr. Tancredo said.

In Arizona, Democratic House members in swing districts—Reps. Harry Mitchell, Ann Kirkpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords—had denounced the Justice Department's effort to block the state law. Ms. Kirkpatrick said Wednesday that the ruling wouldn't end the legal fight.

"Elected officials would be wise to stop talking about distractions and focus on their constituents," Ms. Kirkpatrick said, vowing to press for federal action on a border-security law this fall.

Obama administration officials said the ruling should force Republicans who sided with a bipartisan effort on immigration in 2006 and 2007 to come back to the table.

And administration officials said they believe that after the midterm elections, the debate will shift. In their view, an energized Republican base might drive the results this November. But the 2012 presidential election, which will draw a far larger number of voters to the polls, will likely turn on swing voters, including Latinos in key states such as Colorado and Nevada, administration officials said.

"I find it incomprehensible that Republicans are almost unanimously negative on this decision," New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said. "It's just alienating Hispanic voters.…If Republicans continue to block efforts for comprehensive reform, they're going to suffer at the polls. "

—Naftali Bendavid contributed to this article.

Interesting stuff!!

Leroy

Edited July 29, 2010 by leroy
formatting