Federal Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Immigration Law

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Well it happened, our federal gov. is turning against the American people.

Federal Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Immigration Law
A federal judge on Wednesday granted a partial injunction requested by the federal government on the controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has blocked the portion of the law that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested.

She also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime if someone fails to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

In all, Bolton struck down four sections of the law, the ones that opponents called the most controversial parts. Bolton said she was putting those sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law.

[Don]

I am almost physically sick. Obama surrenders American territory in AZ to Mexican drug dealers and now this.

Rush Limbaugh says it will add to the anti-Democrat vote in the fall 2010 election. Let's hope so.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

Yes, the cake is almost done, and I'm ready with millions of Americans to begin eating it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tim55]

Arizona residents should all stop paying taxes. They are being taxed with NO representation.

[Twoller]

:mad: And so the filth continues to defecate on the United States, its constitution and its citizens. :mad: Steel yourselves. :mad: Set your heart just that much harder against the vermin whose every step on offended soil is a hostile act against free people everywhere and whose every breath is an insult and affront. :mad: Never give up. :mad:

[rs232c]

Supporters took solace that the judge kept portions of the law intact, including a section that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. Those jurisdictions are commonly known as "sanctuary cities."

If a federal judge knocks down sanctuary cities it is effective at the federal level where no city may create them?

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.

Doesn't this say that the federal government's project of fingerprinting prisoners is illegal?

I just read it as I see it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/ap_on_re_us/us_arizona_immigration

[LAPhil]

. . .

[tim55]

Well, I hope Arizona gets a better judge draw in the 9th circuit. Or the supreme court is gonna hear this one.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Well, I hope Arizona gets a better judge draw in the 9th circuit. Or the supreme court is gonna hear this one.


It's going to go to the Supreme Court, regardless of what the 9th Circuit says.

Folks, this was not as bad as it could have been and, more specifically, the injunction was not as broad/all encompassing as I was expecting.

The provisions left standing:

A. Prohibitions against sanctuary cities. All law enforcement in AZ will have to enforce immigr. laws. No L.A./San Fran/Houston crap can exist.

B. Day laborer aimed restrictions. Penalties/criminal charges for hiring that involves motor vehicles stopping on streets or slowing down traffic goes into effect at midnight.

C. Police have discretionary ability to ask about immigration status (i.e. not mandatory; What do you think is going to be the policy in Maricopa County and around the border?)

Gov. Brewer is right. This one is faaaaaaaaaar from over.

[LAPhil]

The provisions left standing:

B. Day laborer aimed restrictions. Penalties/criminal charges for hiring that involves motor vehicles stopping on streets or slowing down traffic goes into effect at midnight.



I heard that day laborers will still be allowed to solicit work.

[PochoPatriot]

I just heard on Bill Handel's morning show, the president or whatever of some day laborer organization. This person stated that the partial defeat of SB 1070 is not the victory that his side is proclaiming. Rather, he said that the partial defeat of SB 1070 is only going to inflame passions and energize the actions of those for the bill. To which I have one thing to say:

WHAT A KEEN GRASP OF THE OBVIOUS YOU HAVE THERE, SPARKY!

[Don]

Very good news!

[LAPhil]

Do you believe all these idiots protesting in Arizona and here in L.A.? Too bad they can't all be placed in the custody of Joe Arpaio.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Do you believe all these idiots protesting in Arizona and here in L.A.? Too bad they can't all be placed in the custody of Joe Arpaio.


The restrictions on day laborers, that were left standing, involve the manner in which they can seek work. There are two new separate crimes (I believe) for slowing street traffic in attempts to seek employment, and for stopping it altogether' while doing so.

[PochoPatriot]

Do you believe all these idiots protesting in Arizona and here in L.A.?

The actions of idiots seldom if ever surprises me.

[LAPhil]

The restrictions on day laborers, that were left standing, involve the manner in which they can seek work. There are two new separate crimes (I believe) for slowing street traffic in attempts to seek employment, and for stopping it altogether' while doing so.
I think you meant to quote my earlier post, but thank you for clarifying that. Apparently that's not good enough for the goons who are getting themselves arrested.

[LAPhil]

Do you believe all these idiots protesting in Arizona and here in L.A.? Too bad they can't all be placed in the custody of Joe Arpaio.
I'm quoting myself here. I'm listening to Sheriff Joe right now and he just said he will arrest those who cross the line and turn them over to ICE as necessary.

[Kathy63]

It created a right to sue a municipality if it has a sanctuary policy and someone has been harmed by the sanctuary policy.

Under this law, the Bologna family would have been able to sue San Francisco for protecting the illegal alien criminal that killed the father and two sons. The Shaws would have been able to sue Los Angeles for Jamile's death.

It's too late to help them, it should open the judicial floodgates for everyone else.

[Rim05]

In all the videos I am seeing yesterday and to day, THEY ARE ALL CARRYING 'AMERICAN FLAGS'. One pappa had his little girl about 2 or 3 years old with a US flag in her hand.
A year ago they would not touch a U S flag.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I think you meant to quote my earlier post, but thank you for clarifying that. Apparently that's not good enough for the goons who are getting themselves arrested.


Of course not. Any immigration law enforcement is "offensive" to them (i.e. "intolerable to our community") No deportations (i.e. "tearing families apart"), local police cooperating with federal authorities (i.e. "group fascism"), or anything other than "humane and respectful treatment for all immigrants." (i.e. no one darker than Mariah Carey is to ever have someone with a badge get within fifteen feet of where he or she is located).

[niteflyer]

The local pro illegal immigration crowd showed up at the Redlands Market Night last night. Maybe 50 people, mostly the college LaRaza crowd with some older folks mixed in. They gave a couple speeches with a megaphone and then held hands and sang a song. It lasted maybe 1/2 hour and the Redlands PD just watched. No counter demonstrators sighted. KCAL CH9 showed up after the protest left and when they heard it was boring they didn't even want to see my tape. :p.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_u12RuORaQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_u12RuORaQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Jeanfromfillmore]

The local pro immigration crowd showed up at the Redlands Market Night last night. Maybe 50 people, mostly the college LaRaza crowd with some older folks mixed in. They gave a couple speeches with a megaphone and then held hands and sang a song. It lasted maybe 1/2 hour and the Redlands PD just watched. No counter demonstrators sighted. KCAL CH9 showed up after the protest left and when they heard it was boring they didn't even want to see my tape. :p.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_u12RuORaQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6_u12RuORaQ&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>Thanks for the video.

[niteflyer]

Welcome.

On the protest last night, I guess I missed all the drama. The protesters were doing mock arrests in another part of the city to show the public how the poor illegals will feel when the racist Nazi PD stops them and asks for ID. More on the protest at the link that will leave you all weepy.

http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/ci_15635689

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site209/2010/0729/20100729_101709_RN30-VIGIL_save_300.jpg

[Ayatollahgondola]

What a bunch of tools

[LAPhil]

What a bunch of tools
Couldn't have said it better myself.

[wetibbe]

Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer


ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

By Publius Huldah Thursday, July 29, 2010


Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.



Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you
See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

....the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”...(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors - Go for it! PH

[LAPhil]

***