Arizona governor: Today the courts told the feds that they don’t have to do their job; Update: Huge win for the right, says … Chris Matthews
posted at 6:12 pm on July 28, 2010 by Allahpundit
Not quite true — in fact, the court told Arizona that they’ve gone too far in trying to do the feds’ job for them — but Brewer’s spinning it precisely the right way to maximize political effect. No matter how many lawsuits the state loses and no matter what grounds it may lose on, the takeaway for most of the public will be that the federal government is now actually using the courts to prevent enforcement of its own immigration laws. Which means that every legal step, regardless of the outcome, is a political win for border enforcement. Arizona’s law was never going to stop border crossings on its own, but the angrier voters get at seeing the feds side with illegals in court, the greater the pressure will be on Congress to take serious enforcement measures along the entire border — which, of course, is the ideal solution. In fact, sometimes I wonder how many people in the Arizona legislature voted for it for exactly that reason, not because it’ll reduce the illegal population in any dramatic way but because it backs the feds into a corner on border security that they really can’t escape from. As a strategic matter, The One would have been better off letting the statute go into effect and then waiting to see if some high-profile instance of abuse happened which he could exploit politically to get the public back on his side. Instead, this. Oh well. At a moment when he and the left must be frantic to pander to amnesty shills in order to shore up their sliding polling with Latinos, passing this thing was a brilliant way to hold them in check. On to the appeal.
Update: Readers are noting that this was a preliminary injunction and therefore the next step’s not an appeal but rather a full hearing. True enough; my mistake. Given the ruling here, they’ll probably lose at trial and then there’ll be an appeal, but like I say, the outcome in these cases is secondary.
Update: Say what you will about Tingles, but the broken clock is on time here.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I remember Allah saying yesterday, it was a slow newsday. I think the god of blogging and iproducts heard you.
Oil Can on July 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM
Well, if the state is prohibited from doing it and the feds won’t do it, then what?
d1carter on July 28, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Obama fighting this will allow it do drag on into November elections. The democrats have got to be wishing Obama had lost in ’08. He’s going down like the Titanic, and there aren’t enough lifeboats for everyone.
portlandon on July 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM
So do I have this right? In Arizona, an (legal)immigrant no longer needs to carry his papers, but in the rest of the country, they still do, per Federal law? Is that really what she is saying?
redshirt on July 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM
This could actually work out quite well
The Notorious G.O.P on July 28, 2010 at 6:19 PM
More states need to pass similar laws…
d1carter on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM
‘..hold them in check” Well I hope that works for them because most of everyone else seems really ticked off. All, I mean all the folks of AZ did was ask for some protection. They were ignored. So they attempted to provide their own. They are prevented. The only people afforded protection by this administration has been illegals. Working for votes is one thing, but risking the lives of citizens to do it is unconscionable. This guy should be impeached and the quicker the better.
jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM
CWforFreedom on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM
I would appreciate a little clarification. The ruling is “preliminary” is it not? Doesn’t that mean that there is nothing to appeal at this time as the court still needs to hear the full case before making a final ruling?
Everyone seems to be acting like this is a final ruling. I don’t think it is. Regardless, I’m sure that this will end up at SCOTUS.
batter on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM
And there have been people on the right who howled at Arizona, accusing them of messing things up. It’s time for RINOs to learn a lesson – it’s better to play offense and aggressively define the debate than sit back and wait to see how the News Media-Democratic Machine will set things up.
pearson on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM
I agree with your assessment but I can not help but think everyone of these in your face issues just brings us closer to the tipping point.
UncleZeb on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM
They still have to carry their green cars because of federal law, but Arizona cannot enforce its own similar law.
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM
Just wait until the rest of the country hears about Staten Island, Mexico.
kingsjester on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM
That was exactly my thought AP. The lawsuit took the game from kick the can to a ball fired into the pinball machine. Now the feds have to keeping flip it around or it turns into game over. Now it comes more apparent to me (though I don’t condone it) why Bush kicked the can down the road. If Bush would have disturbed the status quo he would had to fight the minority Latino and supporter backlash. Obama is in worse shape. He is fighting the majority with the word “illegal” being defended by his administration. Once again the Messiah doesn’t play the tape to the end (incompetence in governing). He puts race in play to help himself for 2010 and now he is cornered into taking sides against the majority FOREVER.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM
Put more succinctly: Obama is willing to bargain away the safety of the citizens of this country for votes for himself and his Party. How low can you get?
jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM
It is not the final ruling. It is a preliminary injunction.
Arizona can immediately appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and failing that, to SCOTUS. Whether those appeal courts would hear the merits of the case right now, or just dismiss the appeal, and tell them to come back later with a final order is another matter.
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM
One more nail in the November coffin…
The voter enthusiasm gap will hammer it tight.
mjbrooks3 on July 28, 2010 at 6:24 PM
I’m not so sure. I think her ruling would only apply to the AZ law which would limit it to State/local law enforcement. I think the Feds law remains in place, not that it will be enforced.
batter on July 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Do these liberals not understand that if the Federal government prevails with the argument that Arizona can not enforce immigration regulations because of federal pre-emption, then state law enforcement can not enforce any federal law. Not drug laws, not environmental laws, not even traffic laws where federal government has set the standards.
It would mean that the State of California can not enforce stricter air pollution standards for automobiles or trucks.
Do they not see this, or do they not believe it? What are they thinking?
Skandia Recluse on July 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM
He hasn’t sunk to his lowest as of yet. Just wait until the next election. At that point we shall see just how low the “O” will go. I’m sure this will pale in comparison.
milwife88 on July 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM
I think you are right.
Terrye on July 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Thanks! I wasn’t certain as to when they can appeal. If they appeal the preliminary injunction, what basis would that have to be appealed on…that is, would AZ need to show that harm would be caused by allowing the injunction to stand or can they appeal on the basis that AZ believes the injunction is just a bad judgment?…
batter on July 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM
Time for a writ of mandamus on the head of ICE or Janet Incompatento to force them to do their jobs? Yeah, I know that would never fly.
So Arizon’s enforcement of a Federal law preempts the Feds’ decision to not enforce the law, but sanctuary cities which openly flout federal law are A-OK? We really have fallen down the rabbit hole.
holdfast on July 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM
My neighbor was arguing against the law and it occurred to me that for liberals civil rights trumps safety. By using knee-jerk liberalism they have overlooked what would be the reaction to them disregarding any concern other than civil rights. The country had this discussion after 9-11 and they lost with the American public. They have just put themselves on the wrong side again as your own reaction will be repeated across the country with the majority. Against the majority is not a good place for a political party.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM
I don’t like AP’s use of the word “spinning” in this context, as it implies falsehoods for political gain. Jan Brewer was *exactly* correct in her characterization of this ruling.
gryphon202 on July 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM
There is nothing, nothing, no depths he will not sink to for votes. There is no bottom.
jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Next in the News, Arizona to be forced to recognize Daylight Saving Time.
Electrongod on July 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM
The current incompetent group of democrats does not play the tape to the end and see opening up Pandora’s box of feds not getting assisstance from local police is a chaotic loser position.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM
That I don’t know, but I suspect Arizona would raise every ground it could. When you have one shot at the preliminary injunction, I assume you’d want to use every argument svailable.
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Great post, KJ.
d1carter on July 28, 2010 at 6:33 PM
Do to the fact that the principle argument made in the injunction is “burden” on the federal government, that is EXACTLY what this ruling is.
Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 6:34 PM
If you want to see what kind of effect this will have at the ballot box, look at the AZ gov race. Two months ago Brewer was leading by a few points. Today she is up anywhere between 15 and 20%.
angryed on July 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM
This reminds me of the recent riots (firebombing of cars and such) around Paris by “migrant youths.” They were shouting at the cops, “There is no law here,” and daring the cops to come into the neighborhoods where French law is no longer in effect.
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM
A temporary injunction is not a permanent ban. It ain ‘t over.
I hope the appeal is successful…for all sorts of good reasons.
One of the things this litaigation brings out is that all 50 states presently do a lot of scut work and heavy hauling for the Feds all across the board.
(Does this mean that those millions spent on training local law enforcement on how to “assist” ICE are now wasted?)
Should this ruling stand, should the feds win on grounds of preemption, a lot of states can save a lot of money by not enforcing a lot of federal laws (unfunded mandates) with which they are now required to comply, and cite as case law this Arizona ruling, should an appeal fail…on grounds of preemption. If the Feds are supposed to do something, under law, then let the feds do it…and stop forcing states to pay for what the feds won’t do, refuse to do, or cannot find the time to do.
As for illegals…regarding those in this country without documentation or permit to be here…they are still illegal. This ruling does nothing to change that status.
The Obama’s DOJ is going all out to defend the “rights” of illegals at the same time it is trampling on the Rights of actual citizens.
And the adults are in charge???
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Which means we have an outlaw federal government, literally.
The inmates may not yet be in charge of the asylum, but outlaws are now in charge of the federal government. At least King Louis XVI followed his own laws.
Tav on July 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM
And word from McCain on this?
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:36 PM
Yes, adults are in charge. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the adults who are in charge are psychopaths.
Tav on July 28, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Don’t forget the bind that Congressional Dems running for re-election in AZ are going to be in now. They were happy to ride the One’s coattails last time around. Watch them run away from him now.
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM
“Hello police? This AZ 1st national bank and we just have been robbed!”
“Excuse me sir. Are you a FDIC Bank?”
“Yes, but what does that have to do with it?”
“Well sir you need to call the FBI, because you fall under Federal jurisdiction. Have a nice day!”
BruceB on July 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM
What or who will he bargain away next for his precious votes? Who’ll be the next demographic he’ll woo at the expense of the rest of us? He has his priorities in order. Votes,votes, votes first and to hell with anything or anyone else.
jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM
He is probably still looking for his strawberries.
Tav on July 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Absolutely true. The court ruled that it would put a burden on the feds. Now there’s no burden. How is that anything but telling the feds they don’t have to do their job?
Ronnie on July 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Thank you. I feel sooo much better, now. :)
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Brewer is just awesome.
Jim-Rose on July 28, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Nicely done.
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 6:42 PM
This lawsuit is a blessing to conservatives…it shows the country that the liberals really don’t care about freedom, the constitution, liberty, only about “winning”.
right2bright on July 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM
There is more to your staement than meets the eye. Once the govrenment filed this lawsuit it enshrined for the first time that they aren’t going to do anything about the border. That is different than the lip service they were given before. Now the citizens of Arizona can point directly to government action that shows they don’t want the border sealed.
This lawsuit blew up in their face no matter what the outcome as Allahpundit says. Obama is the pro-illegal immigration president now. A position every illegal immigration pundit has danced around from CNN to Fox to CBS and NOT taken in black and white. Its official now the administration and their backers are pro-illegal alien not just “immigration reformers”.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM
Which McCain is that?
We have McCain #1: Conservative McCain running in the primary
McCain #2 Moderate McCain running in the general
McCain #3 Ultra lib McCain once he is elected
1 is outraged
2 is disappointed
3 is pleased
angryed on July 28, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Sounds a little irritated with the feds
ConservativePartyNow on July 28, 2010 at 6:47 PM
It looks as though they are all going down in flames
ConservativePartyNow on July 28, 2010 at 6:49 PM
They see it.
They believe it.
They see this as justification to establish a Federal civilian protection force equal in status and power to the US military. Ever hear of that idea before now?
News2Use on July 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Governor Brewer should keep emphasizing that the Feds are forbidding her state from doing the job the Feds refuse to do.
Why do they Feds not want our borders and our national security defended?
Why are Obama and his claque failing to do their sworn Constitutional duty?
In wartime, especially, not securing the borders is derelection of duty.
profitsbeard on July 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM
My thought exactly! Do they get help with bank robberies! HELLOOO!! Don’t remember the FBI squad cars on the news ever when a bank is held up! They are all local to my recollection.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM
I for one feel that Governor Brewer DOES correctly characterize the effect of today’s ruling. It is supportable by the text of the ruling itself.
At page 17 of its decision, the court cites to a federal statute which requires DHS to:
Furthermore, as stated at page 6 of the opinion:
At page 18, the court sided with the feds’ argument stating that if the AZ law went into effect, it would “divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.”
So in other words, the federal government doesn’t want to do what its agencies are statutorily mandated to do because of so-called “burdens.” Since the court sided with the feds on this point, it is indeed giving the feds a stamp of approval to avoid having to field immigration inquiries from AZ law enforcement personnel.
Therefore, Governor Brewer’s remarks are entirely defensible and should not be summarily dismissed as mere “spin.”
OneVision on July 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM
It’s out in the open now. The Federal Govt has declared war upon the American people.
dhimwit on July 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM
And now, here comes amnesty?
capejasmine on July 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM
So…are the feds going to stop the Mexican Consulate in New York from patrolling the streets of Richmond, Staten Island, New York now? They’ve announced that since the authorities cannot protect Mexican citizens in NY, the Mexican government will have to.
What say you to that, Mr. Holder? Mr. Obama?
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Tingles’ argument that cops pulling over illegals are at a disadvantage applies to ANY crime: “I know what I did or didn’t do, but this cop doesn’t!” What a dope.
ggoofer on July 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM
You were correct the first time. As poster Wethal was the first to recognize in this thread, the ruling, though preliminary, is immediately appealable. The parties do NOT have to first undergo a trial. Appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals of rulings on preliminary injunctions is established in Title 28, Section 1292(a).
OneVision on July 28, 2010 at 6:57 PM
I was thinking that one way we could win with getting struck down would be to have something to challenge ‘sanctuary cities’ with.
But with liberals who can come up with ‘engaging in interstate commerce by not engaging in interstate commerce’ idea I suppose even THAT would be a tough case. :/
clement on July 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Sickening coverage of this in the media. Lots of grateful “immigrants” hugging and celebrating their new found victory. I wouldn’t be surprised if Arizona isn’t swamped with new “citizens.” Citizens you say, they’re not citizens. I beg to differ. According to this judge they can pretty much do whatever they want with no repercussions.
sandee on July 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM
No, Allah. Arizona has said it will immediately appeal. One can take such an appeal. It’s called an “interlocutory” appeal (one taken from a case in which there are still unresolved claims in the trial court.)
28 U.S.C. 1292 (a)(1) allows such appeals from “Interlocutory orders of the district courts …. granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.”
28 U.S.C. 1292(b)(1) also allows appeals when the judge certifies that the order concerns a controlling question of law and that there are substnatial grounds for difference of opinion, and the appeal will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. It is up to the judge to decide to certify, and the appeals court need not take an appeal under section (b)(1).
The appeals court apparently must take an appeal under section (a)(1).
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM
dear leader up for another round of fundraising and golf
priorities people, priorities
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 7:03 PM
I think this judge got “the call” and passed the buck to the full court.
The selling point on her call was “it’s going to be appealed anyway, why destroy your good name and have all kinds oa enemies after you”….
or something along those lines
golfmann on July 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM
Wow!!!
So, the standard of onerous burden applies?
If I were a senior military commander….
Mmmm, maybe not, that’s be sedition.
Perhaps, using this “onerous burden” standard, we can start after November in cutting down the size of the Federal government so we can apply necessary resources in a more cost-efficient manner and prevent anymore diversion of “resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.”
A few hundred billion here and there taken from all sorts of extra-Constitutional government agencies and departments can sure pay for a lot of border enforcement, national defense and those other things the Constitution actually says the federal government must do.
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 7:04 PM
Is this the part where the words from the 2nd begin to mean something: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State… “?
Yoop on July 28, 2010 at 7:07 PM
all are welcome, freebies for all…
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM
he never thinks ahead does he…
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM
I am going to give the illegals a little bit of a pass when they disparage those for enforcing the law. They probably don’t realize that we have played this game once before. It didn’t work when Pres. Reagan tried amnesty and the federal government shouldn’t be so stupid as to think we will fall for it again. Of course we continue to elect Democrats so I can see where they might think we are not to bright. Close the border, then we will talk, not until then.
Cindy Munford on July 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM
..well chrissy is right that this will be a loser issue for the democrats this fall….
…Law abiding Americans watching illegals and the democrats that support illegal immigration celebrating the circumventing of our laws will wonder what happened to Obama and his “respect the rule of law” rhetoric.
…But listening to chrissy opine about how this law puts police officers in danger is a prime example as to why liberals should be nowhere near leadership positions.
…this “well the officer does not know but the illegal does so he might commit a violent act to keep from getting deported” line is pathetic.
…under this logic, why try to enforce any laws…..
……I guess we should not investigate if someone is transporting drugs or has a kidnap victim in the trunk….after all…they might try to act out violently in trying to get away.
Earth to chrissy….the police are trained to handle this….that is why they are police officers….this is what they are paid to do……
….you know…..
………….enforce the law.
Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Either that or the 21st.
Ronnie on July 28, 2010 at 7:14 PM
No Tingles! SECURE THE BORDER FIRST!
Ya idiot!
GarandFan on July 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Inter-active map of Phoenix, AZ showing open borders based crimes.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2009/jun/phoenix-az-drophouse-map
Jeff2161 on July 28, 2010 at 7:21 PM
How many folks understand that we’d have to be going through none of this had the Law been followed and the border been secured. Congress voted to build the fence…just didn’t appropriate funds sufficient to do so. But with a secure border as most other nations have, we could more easily assist those who wanted to come to the US get properly papered and in line for citizenship.
Instead we got chaos…still…and the Dems are now actively seeking the votes of illegals for November 2010 and 2012.
If we don’t use this against every Dem incumbent of candidate…
Oh, well.
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 7:23 PM
right on…
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM
At least Sheriff Joe is moving forward with another crime supression.
JackofNoTrades on July 28, 2010 at 7:27 PM
Wow! What a pathetic post by Allahpundit! First he doesn’t know the facts of what happened, and has to update, and then still gets it wrong about the option to appeal this ruling.
Second, he accuses Brewer of putting a political “spin” on this, whe she characterized it exactly correctly.
To say he didn’t know what he was doing when he posted this thread would be an understatement!
JannyMae on July 28, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Chrissy is feeling the November tsunami…even now.
d1carter on July 28, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County (which includes Pheonix) says that the ruling won’t stop him, he’ll just have the county lock-up check the immigration status just like they do now, instead of the arresting officer (which was the new law)
phreshone on July 28, 2010 at 7:36 PM
For now, AZ law enforcement establishment will have plenty to do upholding other provision that will become law tomorrow(?), ferreting out those who transport and harbor illegal aliens for example, or those who establish sanctuary cities.
runner on July 28, 2010 at 7:36 PM
Does Maricopa County do body cavity searches of arrestees?
Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Minutemen.
csdeven on July 28, 2010 at 7:40 PM
All the Pi$$y wants is amnesty and punishing employers who even unknowingly hire illegals . Not a word about securing the border. Not a word on punishing those who steal $$# and IDs .
Here is what the elites don’t understand :
1. Although a few illegals work, a majority of them DO NOT WORK.
2. Illegals don’t have to work because the government gives them welfare, food stamps, WIC, SNAP, free housing, free medical plus free everything for their anchor babies.
3. Illegals steal ID but they are never punished. Those who sell them these IDs are never punished. But if you are an employer, you will be punished if you hire an illegal ( who lies on his application), and you will be punished if you fire an illegal after you find out the he lied on his application.
Chrissy the p!$$y just wants to punish employers, you know the big bad capitalist rich white guy who is oppressing the sad little brown skinned family man. He is spewing communist talking points.
Its about amnesty and punishing Americans. If they really want to fix the problem , the government will
1. Secure borders
2. Punish those who use and sell stolen IDs, SS#s and DLs
Calderon, Zetas and Laraza don’t want the border to be secured. They also don’t want illegals to face punishment if they use stolen SS# and IDs to get jobs because that money goes to mexico. They don’t want punishment for illegals who use stolen IDs because thats how illegals get taxpayer subsidized benefits. And whatever Calderon, Zatas and laraza wants, Hussain will find a way to give it to them. And Chrissy’s leg will keep tingling…because his diapers are always leaking
macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 7:43 PM
The DOJ of the DOTUS never tires of trying to undermine America
Picture what happens if we lose the SCOTUS decision? Effectively, we live in a nation with unenforced borders. If the SCOTUS rules in that way could it be a signal to millions of Mexican illegals to flood across into the border states?
PappyD61 on July 28, 2010 at 7:49 PM
The MSM are blind to how this plays. They are blind to the reaction of US citizens to the celebrating illegals who get to continue flaunting the law. As Allahpundit says this REALLY doesn’t play in Peoria and the more the government backs the illegals the more it undermines itself. As Allahpundit says. These people were smart to pass this law because the feds could leave them be or take the more hazzardous road of supporting a minority in a clearly illegal matter. Lose-Lose situation for Washington that broke the gridlock of ignoring the problem.
Conan on July 28, 2010 at 8:03 PM
This is going to be a killer for Democrats in Pennsylvania. Lou Barletta probably just won the 11th District.
rockmom on July 28, 2010 at 8:03 PM
Yep…the DOJ and the Prez welcoming the Reconquista with open arms.
coldwarrior on July 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM
not just that, he could have used this “burden” argument to get his “reform” package. He could stand up and say ‘Look at how impossible it is to effectively handle all of this, our enforcement is too complicated and costing us so much and people are staying in jail too long” and he would have looked like a leader trying to solve a problem. Instead of taking a cooperative approach he went with combative so now his administration just look like corrupt slackers (of course that is what they are IMO, so maybe it’s not a bad thing)
Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 8:07 PM
Comprehensive immigration reform.
BKeyser on July 28, 2010 at 8:08 PM
So noone is allowed to do what the feds won’t do. Incredible. Also incredible that law enforcement can’t ask for driver’s licenses either since that would lead to discovery of illegal immigration status. And coming across a bus full of undocumented mexicans, well can’t ask them questions either.
I wish a speedy appeal for this, put on for mid september so it will be fresh in the voters’ minds for November 2.
eaglewingz08 on July 28, 2010 at 8:15 PM
South Carolina will next year.
SouthernGent on July 28, 2010 at 8:19 PM
spot on…
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 8:20 PM
what’s going to happen when the next officer dies in the line of duty by an illegal?
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 8:22 PM
Judge Bolton in her ruling has made it legal to be illegal in the Country and illegal for a Police Officer to check on Immigration Status. The Mulism terrorists will be flooding the Southern Border. Her ruling also insures that it is also illegal for the Az. Police Agencies to check them out. She was appointed by Bill Clinton so we know that she is a liberal. Obama’s DOJ refuses to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, ignores the law protecting the Military members right to vote but goes after the State of Az. for enforcing the law.
Calling Eric Holder, Attorney General is a misnomer.
flintstone on July 28, 2010 at 8:25 PM
The kneepads media will make extra super sure that it doesn’t get reported
macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 8:26 PM
probably right
cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 8:28 PM
Since DoJ = Dar oul Jihad
is
Holder = Shah-e – Jihad ?
macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM
I thought the same thing when I saw “spinning”.
aikidoka on July 28, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Even when he tries to sound reasonable, Chris, like the president, can’t help lying.
proconstitution on July 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM
Obama was to be the first “post racial president”. He picked this fight. He’s got it.
This will wake the folks from their slumber, just in time for Nov. Obama may win the Latinos in the next 50 years but for 2010 and 2012 he misjudged foolishley, just like overlooking jobs in favor of health care.
Visionary in Chief
Schadenfreude on July 28, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »