Breaking: Judge blocks parts of AZ immigration law; Update: Pre-emption wins, for now

posted at 1:31 pm on July 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Federal judge Susan Bolton has issued a temporary restraining order against the most controversial portions of the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, while keeping much of it in place.  The requirement for police to check immigration status has been suspended, however, pending a full review by the court at a later date:

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

A temporary injunction gets put into place when a judge thinks that a court review has some likelihood of overturning a law in a full hearing.  That doesn’t amount to a decision on the merits, but it does indicate that Bolton thinks the Department of Justice can make a case for blocking the law.

What will be interesting will be to see whether this impacts public opinion.  The Obama administration has taken a beating in the polls on this issue, with poll after poll showing majorities of Americans supporting the Arizona law.  A temporary injunction on portions of the bill may get some people rethinking the issue, but I’d be surprised if there was any substantial movement. If a judge later rules against the law after a full hearing, it might change feelings about the law specifically, but probably not about enforcement.

I’d also expect the White House to claim this as vindication, but only because they have been utterly tone-deaf on this issue for the last three months.  They should wait on the I-told-you-so for the full hearing.

Update: This point seems key.  On page 14, Bolton says that the law as written would require law enforcement to check immigration status on everyone arrested or held, not just those with “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal immigrants.  That would create a huge burden on both law enforcement and on legal immigrants, Bolton writes.

Also, on page 17, Bolton appears to buy the argument that a large influx of referrals from Arizona to the ICE would have the effect of pre-empting federal policies on national security and immigration:

For these reasons, the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law. This requirement, as stated above, is likely to burden legally-present aliens, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s directive in Hines that aliens not be subject to “the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” 312 U.S. at 74. Further, the number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.

And again on pages 20-21:

In combination with the impermissible burden this provision will place on lawfully-present aliens, the burden on federal resources and priorities also leads to an inference of preemption. Therefore, for the purposes of preliminary injunction analysis, the Court concludes that the United States has demonstrated a likelihood of success on its challenge to the first sentence of Section 2(B). Section 2(B) in its entirety is likely preempted by federal law.

Basically, Bolton seems to feel that the DoJ will win in court on these issues, or at least has a strong case.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4 5 6 7

Screw the judge…

… enact the law anyway and tell the judge to stick her ruling up her a%s!

Seven Percent Solution on July 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

There is no civil war in America. There are only bigots hoping for their chance to act out violently against those whom they target with their hatred.

You have had the nerve to snark off when I called you out on your earlier ethnic/racial remarks. Explain how it is that you can claim to be involved in a civil war and not be prejudiced against those with whom you’re at “war.”

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Can you explain why it’s racist to not want people in this country illegally? I don’t care if they’re whiter than a John Denver concert, they need to follow the same rules everybody else did.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

huh? San Fran wouldn’t send a “large influx” of referrals to the ICE, because San Fran chooses not to enforce federal immigration law. You’re confused, as per usual.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

You mean San Francisco has the option of choosing to enforce or not enforce federal law? Why not Arizona?

This is great. I had no idea cities had an option. Goodbye health care, goodbye all kinds of stuff.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

The SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in cases with a State as a party. I wonder why this case was started at the trial level. If we have to go through the normal appeals process, we are going to lose again, because the next stop would be the liberal 9th Circuit.

tommylotto on July 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

It’s state vs. state, I think.

Arizona can file an emergency appeal to the Circuit Court, and ask for an immediate hearing (ok, they might not get it). After that, Arizona can file an emergency appeal to SCOTUS.

Unfortunately, Kennedy is the supervising justice for the Ninth Circuit, although this time of year he is usually in Salzburg, Austria (speaking Austrian, no doubt).

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

It’s never too long before some Hotairhead starts riffing about race war or civil war on these threads. The real problem lies in how often those remarks go unrefuted.

Why? Couldn’t it also just mean that no one read the comment or that people read it and thought it was too stupid to respond to?

No, of course not. It must mean we’re all racists.

You have had the nerve to snark off when I called you out on your earlier ethnic/racial remarks. Explain how it is that you can claim to be involved in a civil war and not be prejudiced against those with whom you’re at “war.”

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM

So we’re prejudiced against Arabs simply because we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Our troops? They’re all racists?

Esthier on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

So is that an admission that the feds are NOT properly enforcing immigration law?

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Well you don’t think so. So why don’t you deal with it the normal, democratic way. Rather than passing measures at a state level which are preempted by federal law, why don’t you get enough federal congressmen elected that agree with you. Then you can change federal law itself. Or ensure it’s enforcement.

Oh what’s that? You can’t do that?

Ok then.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

There is no civil war in America. There are only bigots hoping for their chance to act out violently against those whom they target with their hatred.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010

Obama? Holder? NBPP? The gutless poltroons who troll this site?

Extrafishy on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Has Governor Brewer weighted in on this yet?On Greta she seemed pretty confident this was going to be upheld. I hope they have a plan B.other than just an appeal.

sandee on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

So this issue stays on the front pages for the next several months, while the Dems want it off. It would have gone to the Supremes regardless of who won today’s ruling. So the argument is not settled. Federal law still requires foreigners to carry documentation. Tell me again how this is good for Obama and the Dems going into the midterms?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

You mean San Francisco has the option of choosing to enforce or not enforce federal law? Why not Arizona?

This is great. I had no idea cities had an option. Goodbye health care, goodbye all kinds of stuff.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

No no… according to this order enforcing the law is probably sometimes bad… but not enforcing it is never bad.

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Does anyone have a link to the opinion?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

Doesn’t this turd claim to be a federal judicial intern – and a law student? If so, he/she should have access to PACER and know how to directly access the opinion.

Liar…liar…pants, etc.

SuzyQAZ on July 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

You mean San Francisco has the option of choosing to enforce or not enforce federal law?

Yep. Federal immigration law allows for some state enforcement, but states rarely if ever, are required to enforce federal law themselves. Read Printz.

This is great. I had no idea cities had an option. Goodbye health care, goodbye all kinds of stuff.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

HCR and the individual mandate acts on individuals, not states. Again, read Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Rather than passing measures at a state level which are preempted by federal law,

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

We don’t know that yet…

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

I want Harry Reid’s version of Comprehensive Immigration Reform – his 1993 version!

http://therealharryreid.org/immigration1993.html

Reid used to believe in strict law enforcement, and an end to birthright citizenship!!! Tom Tancredo could have written Reid’s 1993 press release!

fred5678 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Doesn’t this turd claim to be a federal judicial intern – and a law student? If so, he/she should have access to PACER and know how to directly access the opinion.

Liar…liar…pants, etc.

SuzyQAZ on July 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Nope, she didn’t do either of those two things.

Anything else?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM

So cute, pretending to be a judge. Exit stage left.

NJ Red on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Yep. Federal immigration law allows for some state enforcement, but states rarely if ever, are required to enforce federal law themselves. Read Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

So, (fill in with your fave redneck town) has the right not to enforce federal anti-discrimination law.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

It’s over for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

If the Feds won’t enforce the border, the states can’t…..

…..how will the U.S. SURVIVE?

PappyD61 on July 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Wanna’ know how we’ll survive? More Marxism. More Marxism is their “solution” to everything.

FloatingRock on July 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Hey, here’s an idea….why don’t you just garner a lot of public support for your immigration policy preferences, then elect people to Congress who agree with you. Then….your Congress can change federal law! What a concept!

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Hey…here’s an idea genius….why don’t you hold the people that are currently in office that are always talking about the “importance of the rule of law” accountable to do the job they were elected to do.

Obama added that he ended the controversial interrogation techniques mentioned in the memos because the United States “is stronger and more secure” when it can deploy both power and the “power of our values, including the rule of law.”

Here is your hero bragging about how America is stronger and safer by abiding by the “rule of law”…..

……..yet Obama and his sheep like you crr6 don’t carry these same principles when it comes to America be safer with a secure boarder and protecting this country from illegal immigration like the “rule of law” states that he should.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Can San Fran choose not to enforce federal election law?

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Depends. States need to comply with laws of general application, which act on individuals and private entities as well. But generally, no, they don’t need to enforce federal law themselves. That’s for the feds to do.

Weird, I’m teaching you a federalism lesson right now.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

HCR and the individual mandate acts on individuals, not states. Again, read Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Why read Printz when I can read the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Oh, and San Francisco is not a state. So according to you, cities and towns can opt out of ObamaCare but the state can’t.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Depends. States need to comply with laws of general application, which act on individuals and private entities as well. But generally, no, they don’t need to enforce federal law themselves. That’s for the feds to do.

Weird, I’m teaching you a federalism lesson right now.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

No, that’s not federalism. That’s “selective application of federal law”.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

HCR and the individual mandate acts on individuals, not states. Again, read Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

If states have the right to not enforce then certainly *I* have the right to not enforce…

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Well you don’t think so. So why don’t you deal with it the normal, democratic way. Rather than passing measures at a state level which are preempted by federal law, why don’t you get enough federal congressmen elected that agree with you. Then you can change federal law itself. Or ensure it’s enforcement.

Oh what’s that? You can’t do that?

Ok then.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Which federal law do you think people here want to change? We want the laws enforced, not changed. I know, it’s a strange concept wanting the government to actually do its job, but bear with us.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

AZ to Judge.
“We no longer recognize your authority in this matter under the 10th amendment of the constitution. Please pass the popcorn for the fireworks.”

evilned on July 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

To quote Andrew Jackson, “The judges have made their decision. Now let’s see them try to enforce it.”

Sgt Steve on July 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

^^^^

Enforce it anyway.

Unfortunately, if the 9th agrees with the judge the SCOTUS doesn’t reconvene until October.

BowHuntingTexas on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Oh, and San Francisco is not a state. So according to you, cities and towns can opt out of ObamaCare but the state can’t.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Right. If crr6 wants federalism, crr6 can get federalism.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

When the feds want the states to enforce federal law they threaten the states with a witholding of federal funds. The most recent example I remember is seat belt laws. The feds threatened to withold federal dollars for highways if the states didn’t write seat belt laws into the state law books. However, if they have a federal law they don’t want enforced they use the court system to negate state law. As stated prior to my post the feds don’t take legal action against sanctuary cities that defy written federal law! We are clearly up a gum tree. Look to the Balkans for our future.

chicken thief on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

No, that’s not federalism. That’s “selective application of federal law”.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Er, ok. You do realize that it was conservative judges (O’Connor, Rehnquist) who issued those decisions, in order to further their concept of “federalism”, right? Read New York and Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

The Democrats are attempting to establish another ethnic voting farm as they are losing support elsewhere.

They are desperate.

They will not let anything stand in their way, regardless of the law or constitution.

sharrukin on July 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Enforce it anyway.

Unfortunately, if the 9th agrees with the judge the SCOTUS doesn’t reconvene until October.

BowHuntingTexas on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Right. Follow the example of Obama with the drilling moratorium.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Rehnquist et al. issued a series of opinions in the 90’s which basically said that the feds can’t force state authorities to enforce federal law (Printz, New York).

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

But the feds *can* force state authorities *not* to enforce federal law?

Missy on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM

Never try to speak logically to crr6. It’s capable of reciting past cases and precedents, but nothing more. It also seems to display a reluctance to refer to the Constitution or Bill of Rights themselves unless previously addressed in some opinion.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

janet is doing a happy dance right about now…

cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

You have had the nerve to snark off when I called you out on your earlier ethnic/racial remarks. Explain how it is that you can claim to be involved in a civil war and not be prejudiced against those with whom you’re at “war.”

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Here’s your problem, as I see it. (And the problem of all those who agree with you.)

If we were being inundated by, say, white people from New Zealand, with all the attendant problems thereof that we have now, I imagine you would say that the immigration laws should be enforced in that case.

But since the people are Mexican, you figure any call to enforce immigration law has to be racist.

Which would mean, if you think about it, that no law can ever be enforced against people of color without it’s being racist.

Alana on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

O’Connor was no conservative

sandee on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

PACER is the federal courts’ electronic filing system. Most pleadings are now electronically filed instead of filing paper pleadings (appellate briefs and appendices must also be filed in hard copy.)

When an opinion or order is issued, it’s posted on PACER and emailed to everyone who has filed an entry of appearance (which includes email address).

If you have a PACER login, you can access any case, not just the ones in which your firm is counsel of record.

Don’t know about general public access to PACER, though.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Oh, and San Francisco is not a state. So according to you, cities and towns can opt out of ObamaCare but the state can’t.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Cities and towns get their legal authority from the states they reside in. So local laws=state laws here.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Unfortunately, if the 9th agrees with the judge the SCOTUS doesn’t reconvene until October.

BowHuntingTexas on July 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

October Surprise for the Rs? Say it ain’t so.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Rehnquist et al. issued a series of opinions in the 90’s which basically said that the feds can’t force state authorities to enforce federal law (Printz, New York).

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

But the feds *can* force state authorities *not* to enforce federal law?

Missy on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

ROFL…exactly.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Gov Brewer’s reaction to this may be the make or break in the Nov election.

Pray.

faraway on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

OMG, you are such a fraud!!!!!!!!! Pacer is public access to court electronic records; has case and docket information for all federal courts…you loser. Learn it, love it: http://www.pacer.gov/

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Cities and towns get their legal authority from the states they reside in. So local laws=state laws here.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Actually, doofus the government gets its power from the people.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

“Update: This point seems key. On page 14, Bolton says that the law as written would require law enforcement to check immigration status on everyone arrested or held, not just those with “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal immigrants. That would create a huge burden on both law enforcement and on legal immigrants, Bolton writes.”

Catch-22,”reasonable suspicion”=”ethnic profiling”

The law was written that way to ensure ethnic-blind enforcement.

As far as the filthy little liar crr6 is concerned, the “rule of law” is unidirectional. It can only be invoked when the destruction of the Enlightenment principles that created this country can be destroyed by the Orwellian joke of selective legal enforcement.

ebrown2 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Public Access to Court Electronic Records.

I guess DeVry doesn’t have PACER access?

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

But the IRS can be burdened with making sure we all have health care.

Ronnie on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Here’s a link to the ruling

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/28/azruling.pdf?hpt=T1

azkenreid on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

OMG, you are such a fraud!!!!!!!!! Pacer is public access to court electronic records; has case and docket information for all federal courts…you loser. Learn it, love it: http://www.pacer.gov/

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Typical, ain’t it. Frauds like crr6 and Race Card the Vomit Troll are such America-hating liars that it’s truly pitiful.

ebrown2 on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

PDF of the opinion (via NRO)

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Thanks for the “tipping point” judge…

… see you in November!

Seven Percent Solution on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Arizona should stop enforcing all federal laws. Now bank robbery will be legal in Az because the feds can’t afford to enforce the law. This is a mess.

tim c on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Lots of win-wins all around:

1. The illegals can continue to hide in plain sight in Arizona.

2. The DOJ got to smack down a state that got a little too uppity in its eyes.

3. Jan Brewer, Arizona, and the GOP can continue the “war against Washington” on this and other issues, to great success on Nov. 2.

4. Heck, even Sen. Russell Pearce can continue to use his dead son as a shield against any charges of racism against Latinos, while avoiding responsibility for any problems with what will be a fully-overturned SB 1070.

So, other than the family of Robert Krentz, who’s losing from Judge Bolton’s robed-master act?

BradSchwartze on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

In the meantime, this carte blanche will not be lost on our enemies. I have this mental pix of them flocking over the border. What a silly and short sighted woman this Bolton must be. At the very least she could have left the status more or less quo. As it is she has invited serious problems. How do we get such idiots in our courts?

jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Take a deep breath…this ruling was on Arizona law, not Federal Law…it is still illegal to not carry your green card or non-resident/resident alien paperwork , just temp not against Arizona law. As far as still running arrested people through ICE, I thought that was common practice… they will just not be running detained people through ICE (ie traffic stop etc)

Koa on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Cities and towns get their legal authority from the states they reside in. So local laws=state laws here.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

So San Francisco, in choosing not to enforce federal immigration law, is as errant as Bumfrack, Arkansas would be in not enforcing federal EEOC guidelines?

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Editing error corrected:

As far as the filthy little liar crr6 is concerned, the “rule of law” is unidirectional. It can only be invoked when the Enlightenment principles that created this country can be destroyed by the Orwellian joke of selective legal enforcement.

ebrown2 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

ebrown2 on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Cities and towns get their legal authority from the states they reside in. So local laws=state laws here.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Uh … you’re really reaching. I’d have to say no, because if you’re right and local laws=state laws, then either California is a sanctuary state or San Francisco is ignoring state law in addition to federal law.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Just curious-what is your definition of an “activist Judge”?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

I think the term itself is meaningless. Both sides just use it when they disagree with a particular decision. Judges have generally been called “activist” based for 3 reasons.

1) They depart from precedent.
2) They overturn the will of a democratically elected legislature, or
3) They do not use an “originalist” method of interpretation.

But, of course, both conservative and liberal judges routinely do all 3 of those things. So really, it’s just a stupid term thrown around by stupid people when they’re mad about a decision.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

I can give you plenty of examples of liberal Judges being activists, to wit:

1. 2000 Florida Supreme Court: the Justices (all Democrats) tried to rewrite Florida election law after the election. SCOTUS smacked them down 9-0 and then 7-2.

2. Liberal activist Judges in Massachusetts imposed gay marriage without letting the voters decide the issue.

Both of those cases of liberal judicial activism had huge consequences, on the State and Federal levels.

Can you cite comparable examples of conservative judicial activism? I’ll be here.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

But the IRS can be burdened with making sure we all have health care.

Ronnie on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

excellent point

cmsinaz on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

WTF is “Pacer”? I have Lexis and Westlaw. If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

OMG, you are such a fraud!!!!!!!!!

Um, no.

Pacer is public access to court electronic records; has case and docket information for all federal courts…you loser. Learn it, love it: http://www.pacer.gov/

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I never used that at my federal courthouse, although all the pleadings were electronically filed. We used a system where I had my own login, and to my knowledge, the site we used wasn’t public.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

I’m going to refuse to show my driver’s license if ever I’m pulled over. Somehow, I don’t think that’d fly.

This judge is clearly kind of dumb. Reasonable suspicion. So, if you’re pulled over in a van and you have 20 people shoved into the back, there’s nothing to be suspicious of? Even if the van is pulled over on a known smuggling route?

TheBlueSite on July 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM
San Francisco is errant in all regards as far as I’m concerned…:)

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

So San Francisco, in choosing not to enforce federal immigration law, is as errant as Bumfrack, Arkansas would be in not enforcing federal EEOC guidelines?

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Seems that way. I wonder how many cities and towns are aware they can selectively ignore federal law? I know my city will be happy. Their insurance rates for city workers just sky rockteted because of ObamaCare. City workers not very happy.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Can you cite comparable examples of conservative judicial activism? I’ll be here.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Like I said, I think the term is meaningless and stupid. But by your standard of “letting the voters decide the issue”, I can think of two right off the top of my head.
1) Citizens United. The court overturned federal election law passed by democratically elected representatives.
2) McDonald v. City of Chicago. Same thing except w/ gun control laws.

Like I said, it’s a stupid term, used by stupid people

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I never used that at my federal courthouse, although all the pleadings were electronically filed. We used a system where I had my own login, and to my knowledge, the site we used wasn’t public.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

See, you guys, crr had a superduper secret e-filing system that only she could access, given to her by the judge she can’t name.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

There is no civil war in America.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:22 PM

Try living in Hawai’i for a few years.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

This judge is clearly kind of dumb.

TheBlueSite on July 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Well, the judge is a Democrat. If you’ll read crr6′s posts, you’ll see what contortions they have to go through to promote open borders without actually seeming to promote open borders.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Basically, Bolton seems to feel that the DoJ will win in court on these issues, or at least has a strong case.

My guess is she arrived at the answer that she wanted, then came up with a legal argument to support it.

I’d love to see someone in a sanctuary city bring an otherwise identical suit.

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times

Interesting statement by the AP here as well, both CNN and FOX declined to parrot the AP story and their statements are a little more factual,

She also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Koa on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Tenn H670 does similar to what AZ is doing

ConservativePartyNow on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

This judge is clearly kind of dumb. Reasonable suspicion. So, if you’re pulled over in a van and you have 20 people shoved into the back, there’s nothing to be suspicious of? Even if the van is pulled over on a known smuggling route?

TheBlueSite on July 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Not dumb, sounds like she knew her ruling before she heard the case. That’s why she went out of her way to “question” the fed.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Reality Checker on July 28, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Good luck with that..

Gang-of-One on July 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Let’s pass the law and see what’s in it!

Hey, it works for Congress…

JamesS on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

That was nicely spun. The only type of person who needs to spin like that in response to an allegation of extremism is an extremist. Act daft if you want to but you know what I meant. Or are you going to try ignore the allusions to “race war” and “civil war” on Hot Air?

I understand class warfare. But you’ve got to spin way off your axis to try and connect that to discussions of race and civil war. Come on. Be honest.

Class warfare is not what someone means when they talk about “civil war” in this context. Are all illegals from the same socioeconomic class? Certainly not.

It’s awesome to watch bigots and other social-offenders spin themselves away from the obvious intent of their most brazen-remarks. You know what he meant by “civil war.” I know what you mean by ignoring that.

You’re a nut.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

If rejecting “civil war” is nutty, then I’m your almond.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Like I said, it’s a stupid term, used by stupid people

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Says the person who doesn’t understand the difference between a statute and a Constitutional Amendment, and which one has precedence.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Mark Krikorian offers a look forward:

One broader lesson people need to take away from the legal wrangling over the Arizona law: Any enforcement provisions of “comprehensive immigration reform” that Congress might pass would be tied up in the courts for years…So while the amnesty would go into effect immediately (because, after all, the ACLU supports amnesty), the other provisions, regarding E-Verify and border enforcement and the like, wouldn’t go into effect for years, if ever. So almost by definition there can be no grand bargain of amnesty (and increased immigration) in exchange for tougher enforcement; the enforcement must not only be legislated before any discussion of amnesty, it must be fully litigated, too.

The Dems. have “poisoned the well” more than they realize in building any trust among the electorate in regards to any “comprehensive” plan, for the reasons Mark points out. D.C. – both Repubs. and Dems. – have lost all conciliatory ground they loosely had when Bush tried it. What Obama has done has killed any idea of “comprehensive”.

Weight of Glory on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Can you cite comparable examples of conservative judicial activism? I’ll be here.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Like I said, I think the term is meaningless and stupid. But by your standard of “letting the voters decide the issue”, I can think of two right off the top of my head.

1) Citizens United. The court overturned federal election law passed by democratically elected representatives.
2) McDonald v. City of Chicago. Same thing except w/ gun control laws.

Like I said, it’s a stupid term, used by stupid people

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I notice you were afraid to discuss the two “meaningless” examples I provided. One in which a Supreme Court comprised solely of Democrats tried to swing the results of a Presidential election.

Nothing “stupid” about bringing that up.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” –James Madison, Federalist No. 45

Excuse me Your Honor.. Kiss our collective asses.

Viper1 on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Again, read Printz.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Wyeth v. Levine (2009). One of our attorneys was at a Third Circuit argument a few months ago, and one of the judges asked, “Is there anything left of field pre-emption after Wyeth?” Something a lot of lawyers want to know.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

My guess is she arrived at the answer that she wanted, then came up with a legal argument to support it.

I’d love to see someone in a sanctuary city bring an otherwise identical suit.

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Yep.

ddrintn on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Still no answer from RC on why opposing illegal immigration is racist.

I have a feeling I should open a Snickers.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM

But the IRS can be burdened with making sure we all have health care.

Ronnie on July 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Trust me the IRS will not see this as a burden. When was the last time a government entity said ” No we already have too much power give this back to the people to deal with”

chicken thief on July 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Surprisingly, the media is playing this story as “immigration law blocked”. Almost like they’re ignoring the temporary nature of these injunctions.

hawksruleva on July 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM

If rejecting “civil war” is nutty, then I’m your almond.

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

No one mentioned a “race war” but you, sugarplum. We know it’s a personal fantasy of yours, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM

Koa on July 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM
She did not overturn existing Federal law requiring people to carry papers.
Ironic that now Obama officials can be forced to answer that they took the position that they have the sole duty to enforce this particular law, so will they? Ask them often, I say.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

1) Citizens United. The court overturned federal election law passed by democratically elected representatives.
crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Said law violated the First Amendment. See Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Let’s see, Judges overturning the will of the states….executive moratoriums on drilling, Congressional reconciliation against the will of the people, what’s next, Civil War? It’s getting to that point,

Bobnormal on July 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Any kind of civil unrest would be exactly what the party that “cannot let any crisis go to waste” mightlove to see. With each “crisis” we have been loosing a huge chunk of our freedom, can you imagine what they can do with this?

neuquenguy on July 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Still no answer from RC on why opposing illegal immigration is racist.

I have a feeling I should open a Snickers.

Good Solid B-Plus on July 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM

You’ll have a long wait.

ebrown2 on July 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Well you don’t think so. So why don’t you deal with it the normal, democratic way. Rather than passing measures at a state level which are preempted by federal law, why don’t you get enough federal congressmen elected that agree with you. Then you can change federal law itself. Or ensure it’s enforcement.

Oh what’s that? You can’t do that?

Ok then.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

First off Einstein, I can’t vote in enough states (unlike the SEIU, ACORN types) and get enough legislators elected. Second, if this is pre-empting federal law, what do you call California passing it’s own marijuana laws contrary to federal statutes? If that ain’t pre-emption of federal law, then just what the hell is? And if it’s good enough for the freaks in California, it should be good enough for the citizens of Arizona.

Big John on July 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

So this issue stays on the front pages for the next several months, while the Dems want it off. It would have gone to the Supremes regardless of who won today’s ruling. So the argument is not settled. Federal law still requires foreigners to carry documentation. Tell me again how this is good for Obama and the Dems going into the midterms?txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Bingo. It’s not.

joejm65 on July 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Never try to speak logically to crr6. It’s capable of reciting past cases and precedents, but nothing more. It also seems to display a reluctance to refer to the Constitution or Bill of Rights themselves unless previously addressed in some opinion.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

It’s just amazing to watch liberals who are always chanting about the “importance of the rule of law” rejoice in helping the government fail miserably to “enforce the rule of law”.

These are the same people who whined and cried for years during the Bush Presidency about how terrible ….

…..Rendition

……..NSA wiretapping

…………enhanced interrogation

………………indefinite detention

….all of these were…how they were “war crimes” and how much Bush needed to be prosecuted for using them.

Then when Obama is elected with total power in the House and Senate…….

Not only were there no charges ever brought forward….but Obama is happily using these same policies.

….and the idiot liberals like crr6 that proclaimed so much intelligence and moral authority sit in the coffee shops calling it “smart power” now.

….liberals have no credibility what-so-ever.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

My guess is she arrived at the answer that she wanted, then came up with a legal argument to support it.

I’m inclined to agree.

jeanie on July 28, 2010 at 3:07 PM

i just read the opinion (available through Pacer and on the WSJ main page).

Most of the issues raised by the judge seem fixable by the legislature (language choices; whether words in one sentence modify the next sentence, etc.) She raised an interesting point; apparently there are many types of aliens in the US who are not required to carry id showing their status. That also seems something fixable thru the US Leg.
She did leave intact the portion that makes it illegal for a
person who is in violation of a criminal offense to: (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona (as against the DOJ’s preemption and dormant commerce clause arguments).

(BTW- I don’t know if that Cr66 person claims to be working a lawyer or paralegal, but if he/she does, they would know what Pacer is. If a law student, maybe not.)

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Any kind of civil unrest would be exactly what the party that “cannot let any crisis go to waste” mightlove to see. With each “crisis” we have been loosing a huge chunk of our freedom, can you imagine what they can do with this?

neuquenguy on July 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

What other choice is there but taking that path?

Holger on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

A restless and unemployed electorate will become even more pissed off. Hmmmm. Townhalls in August with cameras and questions about immigration? Gee, what could happen? Remember Pete Stark, of all people being confronted by a constituent about this? Youtube will become fun again in August.

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Hopefully this surpresses D turnout, and increases R turnout.

PrezHussein on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Suggesting people be branded for a misdemeanor is not consistent with what America really stands for in my opinion.
Recent stories have shown that the current admin is deporting more people than under the last admin. Reason is due to holding businesses more accountable for hiring illegal workers. But you won’t acknowledge that.

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

(BTW- I don’t know if that Cr66 person claims to be working a lawyer or paralegal, but if he/she does, they would know what Pacer is. If a law student, maybe not.)

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

She is a law student.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

Hopefully this surpresses D turnout, and increases R turnout.

PrezHussein on July 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Count on it. Like nobody’s business!!!

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 3:11 PM

The Race Card on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

It’s a “nice spin” because it’s accurate.

You realize that CIVIL war is any war fought between members of the same country in that country? Do a google search, there have been THOUSANDS of civil wars within the world.

It’s nice that you can spin things and allude that I’m somehow racist because I use the term correctly.

It’s nice that you ignore my point that the people on here are fighting to defend AMERICANS (of all colors and including the legal immigrants) rights.

Yeah I know what YOU mean… Sure, there are people who are against the brown skins immigrating just as there were people who were against the Irish immigrating (stupid drunk white people) or the Polish immigrating (stupid dumb white people) or as well as you general cases of racism, the French (Freedom Fries!). You can find the evil demon of racism in anything you want.

But unless somebody actually makes racist statements, it’s uncouth and uncivilized, if not downright rude to make snide implications of other people’s motives.

Or, to wit, Your Mother Smells of Elderberries.

Skywise on July 28, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7