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 4 5 6 7

I pay for my classes.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No parents paying your tuition?

No scholarship?

Working your way thru school?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

sadly……the answer seems to be ‘yes’.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

however AZ would be unable to prove that those hired were actually illegal since they aren’t enjoined from verifying status. According to Bolton.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Yep, that’s it. I stopped my internship about a month ago, but I remember now. I’d always cite to a pleading by saying (ECF DCKT # x). We definitely never used “Pacer”.

You didn’t know what PACER is and you supposedly work in a federal courthouse? Wow.

ieplaya on July 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

gahhhhhh spelling all over…just put a giant [sic] around that whole post.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:45 PM

Reaction as one would expect, from all the usual culprits.

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Obama and democrats = Opressors

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 4:48 PM

Arizona ought to consider passing legislation to bar police from arresting anyone for violation of federal laws and cite pre-emption as the reason. “Sorry, feds, we’re pre-empted from enforcing any of your laws or coorporating with you on your investigations.”

dczombie on July 28, 2010 at 4:49 PM

Gov Brewer’s super response

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

….Obama would never make that mistake when quoting Alinsky…….Bill Ayers taught him well.

Baxter Greene on July 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

I’ve always wondered why the only picture Hussain’s lickers and fluffers bring out to showcase his
* cough*
career as a constitutional law professor
is the one in which he is writing on blackboard
which has a flow chart of power , as espoused by alinsky on it !!

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM

I pay for my classes.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No parents paying your tuition?

No scholarship?

Working your way thru school?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

My guess is that crr6 is co-owner of a north-of-the-border sweat factory he’s trying to protect.

betsyz on July 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Gov Brewer’s super response

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

That is a great, strong response. Thanks for sharing.

Firefly_76 on July 28, 2010 at 5:00 PM

Gov Brewer’s super response

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Go, Jan, Go!
Anybody know if she is countersuing the feds for the costs of the illegals?

txmomof6 on July 28, 2010 at 5:02 PM

I pay for my classes.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No parents paying your tuition?

No scholarship?

Working your way thru school?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Ever heard a lapdancer’s excuse ?
Its always
” I’m doing this to pay for college “

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 5:03 PM

This is some pretty scary video of what happened on the border right after the judge rendered her decision.

YYZ on July 28, 2010 at 5:05 PM

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

Or, she got a call from the Chicago thug threatening her and her family. I’m sure, unlike Sherrod, he had not problems contactin Judge Bolton.

SouthernGent on July 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Reaction as one would expect, from all the usual culprits.

Schadenfreude on July 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM

Thanks for that link. One thing’s for sure, she absolutely did the right thing when she took that AG off the case.

Eren on July 28, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM

“Sadly, yes.” ??

You missed an earlier post. While Bolton temporarily restrained enforcement of AZ 1070, the whole remainder of AZ law is still in effect.

Caught me a sucker baby troll! Those rhetorical questions get ‘em every time.

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I regret being so late to this post as to commenting, but I’ll now need to go back to page 1 of comments and read forward.

Meanwhile, this part:

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

does not even make sense as to the federal law, which requires all “legal aliens” in the U.S. to carry their Green Card/Visa with them “at all times” while in this nation.

So, not sure what “burden” or “harms” Judge Bolton “rules” (what she wrote) (saying “the court [deems it a burden]” or something like that) for legal aliens to be asked to present I.D….while it’s the existing federal law that they do.

That’s just for starters as to her wonky reasoning.

And, I disagree that she left “most of the law in place” or whatever is declared here (opening few paragraphs). She DID leave the part in effect that it’s now against state law to transport illegal aliens, so that will get people arrested who are driving anyone who is an illegal alien…

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

I pay for my classes.

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

No parents paying your tuition?

No scholarship?

Working your way thru school?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

My guess is that crr6 is co-owner of a north-of-the-border sweat factory he’s trying to protect.

betsyz on July 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

crr is a she.

Some good friends of mine asked me for some advice last week as their son is seriously considering going to a college I briefly attended, which is a national leader in its field (not law). I was amazed to discover that this school’s annual tuition is now $50,000 a year. And that does not include room and board! Ironically, the reason I left said school many years ago was that I didn’t think I was getting my parents’ money’s worth there.

The best law schools are in the same range-$40-50 K per year plus another 10-15K for room and board. Not cheap.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

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

Although for at least fifty years, federal law has required them to carry their green cards at all times.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

See, I knew I need to read the comments…

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:19 PM

The ruling will not affect arrests in Maricopa County, everyone booked in the jail is sent to an ICE agent that is the jail (287g detention officer)

JackofNoTrades on July 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM

crr is a she.
Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

No “she” isn’t. Can’t believe you guys fall for these tricks. Simply lying to obfuscate identity.

ClassicCon on July 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

Hannity will have both MM and Jan Brewer on his show tonight.

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 5:32 PM

crr is a she.
Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

No “she” isn’t. Can’t believe you guys fall for these tricks. Simply lying to obfuscate identity.

ClassicCon on July 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

A coy?

betsyz on July 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Judge Susan Bolton, appointed by…………wait for it……….wait for it.………BILL CLINTON!!!!!

So is this ruling of hers any big surprise?

pilamaye on July 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM

A cop can’t investigate someone breaking immigration law but the IRS can question and fine you if they suspect you aren’t contributing to Obamacare. Can things get any more insane?

You’re better off being an illegal alien than you are as an American citizen.

Django on July 28, 2010 at 5:39 PM

So now you all get to eat crow.

And it’s awesome.

Does anyone have a link to the opinion?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM

The irony (and embarrassing foolishness) of you not having your own link to the opinion are astounding.

“Eat(ing) crow”? Is your face still in your pie?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:43 PM

Caststeel on July 28, 2010 at 5:12 PM

hmm…I think i misread something somewhere. I’m not sure why I put ‘sadly’ in there….except that it’s sad that this is the ‘only’ way you could use 1070 by this judges interpretation.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 5:46 PM

A cop can’t investigate someone breaking immigration law but the IRS can question and fine you if they suspect you aren’t contributing to Obamacare. Can things get any more insane?

You’re better off being an illegal alien than you are as an American citizen.

Django on July 28, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I listened for the first time in my life earlier today to a few minutes of The Michael Medved show on the radio. A caller from New Jersey pointed out that New Jersey is planning some legislative move to “legalize” medical marijuana, while that’s against federal law (and it is).

The caller went on to point out that the state AG received a letter from Eric Holder, DoJ, who encouraged the state of N.J. to pursue it’s legalization of medical marijuana. Not to worry, in other words, despite the fact that the law against such on a federal level remains in effect.

Same applies to sanctuary cities, sanctuary counties — federal laws prohibit yet current DoJ (Holder) won’t enforce against those who violate the federal law, no more than he will not only NOT enforce against states claiming medical marijuana to be legal in their state/s but also now ENCOURAGING states to pass such legislation (letter to N.J. used as reference here).

So the current DoJ’s (Holder’s, Obama’s) intense legal heavy handedness against Arizona as to SB1070 makes no ethical sense when their litany of encouragement to other states IN VIOLATING FEDERAL LAWS is well documented, highly observable.

That the federal government would experience “irreperable harms” as the DoJ claims had SB1070 gone into effect in full (without restraint) is beyond a lie, it’s just plain looney nonsense, with evidence to the contrary in abundance by Holder’s behaviors.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:50 PM

My conclusion is that Eric Holder is mentally incompetent and that Barack Obama is morally incompetent.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:52 PM

A couple of good points made elsewhere (and even within her injunction) is that LEO’s maintain the discretion to check. So I’m having trouble with the leap that states are prempted from mandating they check. It seems to me that leads to big equal protection issues.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 5:52 PM

She DID leave the part in effect that it’s now against state law to transport illegal aliens, so that will get people arrested who are driving anyone who is an illegal alien

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

and how do they determine that those transported are illegal?

not snark, see my post above.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate

So this administration will challenge individual states’ patchwork of various overly-strict and complicated firearms laws next, right? Right?

rogerb on July 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Exactly what I just pointed out (^^ earlier comments).

Here we have Eric Holder as AG actually writing a letter of encouragement to violate federal law to the state of New Jersey, refusing to enforce federal law against cities/counties who “create” their own violations (“patchwork [of] laws”) of federal immigration law, and Holder has the NERVE to make that claim against Arizona?

Guy is either mentally incompetent or really doing a bangup job of ridiculing the academics of his job requirements.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Why didn’t the eager-beaver Feds move against “sanctuary cities” years ago?

These burgs pre-empted federal control by invalidating a part of the national immigration law that they disagree with.

If the Feds were really serious about “pre-emption” they would have acted against these self-declared, state-based scofflaws first.

This looks like selective prosecution.

Which invalidates the judge’s case, since she makes no mention of that pre-emption of the federal system by a non-federal actor.

profitsbeard on July 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate

So this administration will challenge individual states’ patchwork of various overly-strict and complicated firearms laws next, right? Right?

rogerb on July 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Exactly what I just pointed out (^^ earlier comments).

Here we have Eric Holder as AG actually writing a letter of encouragement to violate federal law to the state of New Jersey, refusing to enforce federal law against cities/counties who “create” their own violations (“patchwork [of] laws”) of federal immigration law, and Holder has the NERVE to make that claim against Arizona?

Guy is either mentally incompetent or really doing a bangup job of ridiculing the academics of his job requirements.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

AND DON’T OVERLOOK THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, which has a law similar to Arizona’s SB1070 already in effect and it has been in effect for several years now without so much as nod or eyebrow raised by Eric Holder (or earlier by the DoJ).

Holder’s not behaving credibly.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:00 PM

My husband is a legal resident from north of the border (I know, wrong side!) and he was told to carry his green card at all times when he got it.

So is this judge saying he doesn’t have to carry it anymore? What a doofus.

Marybeth on July 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

He still has to carry his alien registration card.
He is a legal permanent resident who has been fingerprinted and is on way to becoming a citizen under the laws of this country.

He is not the kind of person this judge and DOJ are concerned about.

This ruling is to make it easy for illegals because they have stolen IDs and SS# and they need these documents to get the public benefits they don’t deserve and the jobs they are not eligible for.

macncheez on July 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Yeah, enforcing the law against illegal aliens with stolen/forged I.D.s (which is, likely, all of them), that would then reveal the amount of fraud occuring in federal programs that are “benefitting” the illegal aliens by way of fraud. I’m sure Holder wants to keep his 6 hour work day and not add to his “headaches”.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM

hey does anybody know if, let’s say my State (Commonwealth) of VA put forth a law like AZ (we’re already doing it in several counties), what federal court judge might be likely to hear the case if the O admin brought suit?

bernzright777 on July 28, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Some top-notch analysis of this ruling is at NRO’s The Corner blog, done by real lawyers. (Not internet lawyers, not affirmative action lawyers)

The Corner

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Why didn’t the eager-beaver Feds move against “sanctuary cities” years ago?
profitsbeard on July 28, 2010 at 5:58 PM

They are not serious and neither were they under Bush. We are stuck with the bill.

CWforFreedom on July 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Update: It’s too hard to do and expensive so you can’t do it? That’s the basis of staying this law?

Rocks on July 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Oh, and it’s “a burden”, the law is if enacted as written. A burden. Federal government would be “irretrievably broken” by the “burden” of enforcing the law or allowing the state of Arizona to enforce laws that pick-up the slack.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Mark Levin shredding this injunction right now.

RedRedRice on July 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Face it, America, the drug cartels and their smuggling routes are more important to Eric Holder and Barack Obama and the Democrat Party than our national security and Constitution are. Constitution, that one that says citizens govern.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

Mark Levin shredding this injunction right now.

RedRedRice on July 28, 2010 at 6:14 PM

How to listen?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

WMAL online stream.

RedRedRice on July 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

crr is a she.

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 5:18 PM

No “she” isn’t. Can’t believe you guys fall for these tricks. Simply lying to obfuscate identity.

ClassicCon on July 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM

She hasn’t given me any reasons to doubt her gender. Can you cite some examples of why you believe otherwise?

Del Dolemonte on July 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

How to listen?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

A link to our local broadcast:
http://wbap.com/article.asp?id=746707

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM

How to listen?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

I like

http://www.talkstreamlive.com
http://www.thestreamcenter.com

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

How to listen?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

A link to our local broadcast:
http://wbap.com/article.asp?id=746707

pambi on July 28, 2010 at 6:18 PM

Thanks, I found it, tuned in…

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

How to listen?

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:15 PM

I like

http://www.talkstreamlive.com
http://www.thestreamcenter.com

Inanemergencydial on July 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM

Thanks! I looked him up easily after I posted my question, found his “live” show streaming… thanks for the helps.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

A Democratic Judge rules in favor of open borders. Non-Democrats need to wake up. Lose this battle and you’ve lost your country. Permanently.

Basilsbest on July 28, 2010 at 6:21 PM

WMAL online stream.

RedRedRice on July 28, 2010 at 6:17 PM

Thanks! His website offers LIVE streaming of his shows — thanks for the helps.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:22 PM

Anyone who thinks we are living in a republic, or a democracy is living in a dreamland. we live in a judicial/bureaucratic oligarchy.

the laws and the constitution are whatever they say they are, and as we have seen over and over again, the will of the people as expressed through their representatives is meaningless.

where is Vinny Fox?

Viva la RAZA, might as well join the winning side….

right4life on July 28, 2010 at 6:25 PM

This target-rich environment just got richer.

Mirimichi on July 28, 2010 at 6:35 PM

No mention of potential racial profiling? I find that interesting since so many opposed to this bill are calling it racist.

denverbiblio on July 28, 2010 at 6:37 PM

The Judge is a liberal appointed by Bill Clinton. There is no doubt that she received a call from the White House telling her that if she wanted to move up in the Federal Judiciary System that she should rule in favor of the Obama Administration, and she did.
What she says is that it is legal to be illegal but illegal for Law Enforcement to ask if they have legal status.
The Government for years has punished the achievers and rewarded the do nothings. Judge Bolton has now rewarded the law breakers and punished the law biding.

flintstone on July 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM

If you have the cite that’d be fine too.

Do you?

crr6 on July 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Do YOU?

Do your own work. You’re still asking two comments pages later for someone else to spoon-feed you material.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 6:52 PM

I need to know, is there any simple way of going back to the days when I really didn’t give a shit about how corrupt and ignorant our government is? Does anyone know of a place I can get a cheap lobotomy? I’m to the point I’m so disgusted and frustrated with the IDIOTS in this country that I feel it might be best if I’m just unable to think about it anymore. If things don’t turn around soon I’m just moving into a cave with lots of food, weapons and ammo and god help the fool who comes looking for me.

BadMojo on July 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Then you can change federal law itself. Or ensure it’s enforcement.

Oh what’s that? You can’t do that?

Well, we already have the law, and it has been selectively enforced for centuries. But the gradual takeover of the permanent government by progressives who don’t care about the law has turned enforcement into a joke.

And I’m sure 50 commenters have already reminded you that your preemption argument is so stupid it barely warrants comment, but then, I am who am. If preemption is a legal problem for illegal immigration, then why have so many cities controlled by leftists declared their boundaries to be a sanctuary for people who are in violation of Federal law?

Nice try.

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM

Bradky on July 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Ruth Buzzie Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton and confirmed 96 – 3. What’s your point?

Do you imagine that the GOP Senators who approved her are responsible for her voting record? Of course not. She was qualified; they confirmed her. The President gets to nominate imbeciles if he wants to, as long as they are qualified.

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 7:01 PM

Needless to say, because AZ is stuck in the Kangaroo Court of the 9th circuit, this ends up in the Supreme Court. Should be fun.

Add Federal circuit and appeals courts to the list of institutions now controlled by liberal idiots. Given that most of us are more conservative than any of this, we are doing an awful job of creating government of the people.

Jaibones on July 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

I need to know, is there any simple way of going back to the days when I really didn’t give a shit about how corrupt and ignorant our government is?
BadMojo on July 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

I had that exact same thought last week. I wish.

LASue on July 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

Or, she got a call from the Chicago thug threatening her and her family. I’m sure, unlike Sherrod, he had not problems contactin Judge Bolton.

SouthernGent on July 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM

Or she wants to be nominated to the Court of Appeals.

Wethal on July 28, 2010 at 7:08 PM

I saw Bammie’s administration position on the decision on Fox News a while ago, and it contained something to the effect that ‘if Arizona has its own immigration laws, then we end up with a maze of laws of 50 states in concert with the federal government, and that is just unacceptable.’

Yet if you look at liberal strategy for subverting the 2nd Amendment, that is the very tactic that has worked so well for them.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 7:09 PM

We need the border states to form a coalition, secure the border, and ignore the fed. I bet if they asked for donations people would happily donate.

darwin on July 28, 2010 at 7:10 PM

Interesting inter-active map of crime caused by illegals in Phoenix.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2009/jun/phoenix-az-drophouse-map

Jeff2161 on July 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM

I need to know, is there any simple way of going back to the days when I really didn’t give a shit about how corrupt and ignorant our government is?
BadMojo on July 28, 2010 at 6:53 PM

I had that exact same thought last week. I wish.
LASue on July 28, 2010 at 7:06 PM

We need government so small and less-powerful that their incompetence and corruption can’t destroy the country. Government incompetence was a good argument for a small and weak central government in 1776. Today a legislator is expected to make law on complex financial instruments, the internets, EM bandwidth allocation, drug patents, defense purchasing, nuclear weapons proliferation, ‘global warming’, etc, -all extremely complex topics. They have no hope of competence.

The complexity of modern life is in itself an argument for small government.

slickwillie2001 on July 28, 2010 at 7:17 PM

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.

So what? That’s not law. She’s speculating about resources and enforcement decisions. Explain how this AZ law preempts federal law.

This decision is not based on law. It’s politics.

forest on July 28, 2010 at 7:29 PM

You file docs with ECF. They are publicly available via PACER. Jesus.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

It sounds to me that crr6 is “looking stuff up” on the internet when challenged, such that he/she/it can then “sound” or “look” credible, while not being credible beyond her/his/it’s personal (and quite politically Leftwing) propagandized generalizations (note the nomenclature, it’s common Leftwing DNC chatter as also can be heard/read on many a junior high or highschool campus).

(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

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

You work in a federal courthouse, huh? Are you working now? If not, you’re stealing our money.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Your “system” is called ECF, btw. Figure out what that means, crr6.

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM

And, I think he/she/it sounds moreorless like a clerical employee at a courthouse or, perhaps works for a county otherwise — or maybe clerical with an attorney or firm.

She/he/it also sounds suspiciously like “happyfeet” and a user on Politico (Obama camper) who likes to promote her giant eyeball as icon and her alleged red hair, thrown in with a lot of quasi-”lawyeresque” mumbo-jumbo pretense.

Obama certainly attracts a lot of people keen on hyperbole that when examined closely means little except as a residue tossed about to irritate political opposition.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The only thing you need to read regarding this horsesh!t decision.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3MDA5ZmU1NzAzZTJhNTIyYWQxZjEzMzdiMGE2Y2Y=

exsanguine on July 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM

and how do they determine that those transported are illegal?

not snark, see my post above.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 5:53 PM

I GUESS when LE stops someone driving a vehicle and their passenger/s doesn’t present adequate I.D. to suit LE’s review, then they get reported to ICE who will THEN check their “immigration status”?

I’m no legal person, and, I wonder as much as anyone here/anywhere else as to the Giant Hoops of Unreality this Judge has positioned. Little of what’s been deemed today to be an issue by Bolton is explained by her reasonably — she has CREATED as many contradictions as Holder has in his reckless use/abuse of the DoJ.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

The only thing you need to read regarding this horsesh!t decision.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3MDA5ZmU1NzAzZTJhNTIyYWQxZjEzMzdiMGE2Y2Y=

exsanguine on July 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Yes, thanks for that link (Mark Levin Op-Ed), some of which follows…

…First, the court states correctly that the sort of constitutional challenge brought here — a facial challenge — is the most difficult challenge to mount successfully. It requires that the plaintiff (here the federal government) must demonstrate that the law can never be applied in a constitutional fashion. The test cannot be met with hypothetical arguments — yet that is exactly what the court relies on in its ruling: the assertion that the AZ law will impose an impermissible burden on law enforcement, which is to determine the legal status of a person detained pursuant to the AZ law on the reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The court does not provide any empirical basis to support its conclusion. It’s pure supposition. (– Continued).

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Little of what’s been deemed today to be an issue by Bolton is explained by her reasonably — she has CREATED as many contradictions as Holder has in his reckless use/abuse of the DoJ.

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 7:48 PM

totally agree.

Fighton03 on July 28, 2010 at 7:57 PM

Summary of Errors in Bolton’s Ruling

http://corner.nationalreview.com/

Major Error 1: Judge Bolton accepted hypothetical arguments from the government in a facial challenge to the law. I.e. Bolton said hypothetical danger to legal citizens outweighed actual threat posed by illegal aliens.

Major Error 2: Bolton said Arizona enforcement conflicted with federal policy of non-enforcement. This is absurd – not a real conflict. The feds have no policy, therefore there is no conflict.

Minor Errors: Bolton relies on inapposite case Hines v. Davidowitz; ignores relevant case Plyler v. Doe; and exploits a drafting error that Arizona had already repudiated

GTR640 on July 28, 2010 at 8:23 PM

Facts Should Matter [Mark Krikorian]

Not to get too far into the weeds, but to amplify a point Heather made below about today’s Arizona ruling:

The only lawful aliens to whom the judge could point who would not necessarily have proof of status “readily available” to them, however (neither the federal government nor the judge asserted that proof of status was “unavailable” to such individuals), were visitors from visa-waiver countries [my emphasis — MK], asylum applicants who have not yet received a green card, victims of certain enumerated crimes such as trafficking who are assisting law enforcement, and women who have petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. But presumably the lawful status of such aliens would be known to the federal government. If an Arizona officer inquired into those aliens’ immigration status, ICE would tell the officer that the person is authorized to be in the country, ending the investigation.

It’s actually better than that. Visitors from visa-waiver countries have their duration of stay stamped in their passports, so they do so have “readily available” to them proof of legal status, and the federal government obviously knows this. A colleague was shocked that DHS and DOJ would tell the court such a “complete bald faced lie.” Considering they also lied about the likely increased burden on the Law Enforcement Support Center, you’ve got to figure that the Obama people are desperate. Though if these lies are exposed in the subsequent litigation it may not make much difference anyway, since the Clinton-appointee’s ruling “verges on bad faith,” as Heather put it.

07/28 07:00 PM

Lourdes on July 28, 2010 at 8:31 PM

This should be fun after it gets past the 9th Circuit and heads to the SUPREMES!!

I’m thinking 5-4… Oh, yes… 5-4…

Khun Joe on July 28, 2010 at 8:47 PM

I am an American living in Japan. Foreign residents here (does not apply to US tourists) MUST by law carry a foreign registration card. Must show upon request by police or other designated officials. These are my “papers” and I have no problem with this because I am here legally. I see no reason why the US has to bend over backwards to be nice to foreign nationals who in most cases are happy to show their “papers.”

Now if you don`t have papers you are illegal by definition.

This judge is wrong-headed and liberal.

And her decision makes no sense nor does it reflect reality.

Illegal means illegal. Yeah, you might forget your “papers” (a card that fits in your wallet or purse really) on some days and I think the Arizona law does not require you be clapped in irons should you forget yours. Am I correct here?

But what we must realize is that “papers” merely constitute a “license” for one to be in a country of which one is not a citizen. That is all.

A driving permit is a license as well. What happens if you get stopped without one?

This stuff is not rocket science.

It is plain common sense.

But not much of that among dems and libs to spare. Unlike their nonsense of which they have in abundance . . . .

Sherman1864 on July 28, 2010 at 8:59 PM

since the dems no longer follow the consitution why should conservatives follow the whims of the judeges. the rule of law is toast in this country. It is not being enforced, no one in government cares about the law why should its citizens care.

andrew Jackson is needed now more than ever

unseen on July 28, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Obama threatened the judge, physically, probably a broken kneecap.

proconstitution on July 28, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Time for the citizens of this country to arm themselves and defend the borders of this country…

… fu%k the judge!

Seven Percent Solution on July 28, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Wonderful, this judge has effectively decreed anarchy rules!

Metanis on July 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM

Election has consequences. We are looking at having to live with the legacy of a BJ’a appointee. ( Thanks you Perot’s voters). We will have to suffer a long time later on over Barry’s radical picks for the bench. Let not fail to realize how important 2010 and 2012 will be for you and your children.

bayview on July 28, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Election has consequences
bayview on July 28, 2010 at 10:37 PM

bullcrap. winning an election does not entitle one politcal party to rewrite the rules of the game or make up the rules as they go. We were a nation of laws. the consequences of elections over the last 200 years in this country were suppose to allow the winners of said elections to make the laws in accordence with the consitution of the USA. elections do not entitle the winner to fundementally change the contract of the nation.

unseen on July 28, 2010 at 11:17 PM

Some people still think we are a constitutional republic under rule of law.

How quaint.

Perhaps a few more “rulings” like this will wake them up.

Rebar on July 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM

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

What about the preemption of the Sanctuary City? Can a legal resident in those cities sue the local government?

TN Mom on July 28, 2010 at 11:58 PM

When it came to Bush, libs didn’t believe in preemption to save American lives. We now know they believe in preemption when it comes to Americans trying to enforce the law.

pearson on July 29, 2010 at 12:44 AM

What about the preemption of the Sanctuary City? Can a legal resident in those cities sue the local government?

TN Mom on July 28, 2010 at 11:58 PM

In AZ they still can. The injunction did NOT include that portion.

Fighton03 on July 29, 2010 at 12:55 AM

andrew Jackson is needed now more than ever

unseen on July 28, 2010 at 9:06 PM

Andrew Jackson is dead.

It is time to get off the sofa, look to ourselves and our neighbors and fix this.

Some people still think we are a constitutional republic under rule of law.

How quaint.

Perhaps a few more “rulings” like this will wake them up.

Rebar on July 28, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Doubt it. They missed that you must bow and embrace homosexuality to graduate college. They missed when contract law went out the door last year. They missed Kelo v New London a couple years ago. They still think the police are here to protect them while the courts have informed us that the officer has no obligation to protect you. Anytime the state has a “compelling interest” the 4th Amendment goes out the door. People have ignored, or are ignorant of, the chipping away at their liberty for the last 100 years.

AZ_Redneck on July 29, 2010 at 1:08 AM

I love how this nut-judge basically ruled that anyone can break into the US and look for work. Once you’re over the border, you’re home free!
What is really interesting is her admission that the Feds have made it their de-facto policy to NOT enforce their own immigration and labor laws.
Wow!!! So, federal-immigration laws are preeminent, but they can only be ignored by the federal government. If you try to enforce those SAME laws as a state, you are violating the Constitution even though those laws were passed by Congress????
I love how she ruled that it is not against the law to seek work in the U.S. without authorization. I bet some lawyers at the DOJ and DOL have their heads spinning…

shorebird on July 29, 2010 at 3:36 AM

PS

The next time a cop asks for your Driver’s license, tell him or her that that they are illegally demanding proof of citizenship…

shorebird on July 29, 2010 at 3:53 AM

The law prof that Laura Ingraham had on O’Reilly last night said the judge is wrong about showing proof of citizenship. They’ve had to for quite some time (Fed law) and the police may still use discretion to see said “papers.” Nothing has really changed. AZ can still arrest an illegal (or anyone for that matter, on “suspicion.”) This is a dog and pony show and all Dems (even judges) are afraid of this white house and their cronies.

…and we have to wait another 2+ years for our new Fascist dictator’s reign to be over?…yuk!

Nalea on July 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM

as usual, Obama is going against the wishes of the majority of Americans.

kingsjester on July 29, 2010 at 8:17 AM

This may backfire. To insist that all be checked for papers would also imply that border guards must do the same.

And they don’t.

AnninCA on July 29, 2010 at 9:21 AM

New billboard idea for Arizona:

Directions to Judge Bolton’s house where illegals can hang out and wait to be hired for day labor. Throw in something about how she’ll personally come out and serve lemonade and cookies.

Left Coast Right Mind on July 29, 2010 at 10:24 AM

This looks like the possible precedent will be that it’s illegal for one jurisdiction (AZ state authorities) to refer a potential crime to the responsible jurisdiction (federal authorities).
Seems like a terrible tack to take.

remywokeup on July 29, 2010 at 12:04 PM

To think of all the legal immigrants who now realise that all their efforts were for naught

this is just the type of government they tried to escape from and they now find themselves standing behind the sheetbags who are rewarded for the easy way out

sort of like the morgage debacle

Sonosam on July 29, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7