Judge Weighs Fate of Arizona Immigration Law
[Guest post by DRJ]
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton held hearings today on two legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration law set to take effect July 29th, including a morning hearing involving claims by the ACLU and other groups and an afternoon hearing on a Justice Department claim. This Azcentral.com report (the online version of The Arizona Republic) indicates Judge Bolton provided some insight as to how she will rule:
“She didn’t issue a ruling, and it is unknown when she will. But the clock is ticking toward next Thursday, when the law goes into effect.
Bolton did make one thing clear: She has no intention of invalidating the entire law but is considering halting the enactment of a handful of its 14 sections.”
The article discusses portions of today’s arguments regarding SB1070 Section 2, which involves enforcement and arrest; Section 3, documentation; and Section 6, removable offenses.
— DRJ
The Arizona law is so simple, so obviously necessary, fair, and even-handed that opponents are reduced to arguing the federal government’s refusal to enforce it’s own immigration laws is grounds to preclude Arizona from taking on the job Washington DC won’t do.
ropelight (02fbf8) — 7/23/2010 @ 5:37 pmThe courts have a long history of ignoring the law in order to advance the interests of the open-borders lobby. It would be nice if this time was different, but I’m not holding my breath.
Subotai (fadb4b) — 7/23/2010 @ 6:41 pmFrom reading what portions of the briefing that I’ve found, I can’t see how the DOJ gets past the fact that Congress authorizes the states to detain for immigration and query immigration status.
If the judge rules for the DOJ at all, the memorandum opinion ought to be a farce.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/23/2010 @ 7:17 pmBarry knows he will lose eventually, but in the interim he is pandering to the Hispanic vote. Not only that, but frivolous lawsuits have a twofold purpose in that they send a message to folks without limitless funds to back the Eff off. They also have the desirable added bonus of saddling the victims with years of litigation through all the courts at great expense. It’s like trying to go about your daily business with a massive ball and chain attached to your ankle. It doesn’t stop you, but it sure wears you out.
Gazzer (800a42) — 7/23/2010 @ 7:26 pmI suppose the proper response would be for Arizona to join Virginia and any other state that might sue the Obama Administration and Congress claiming the Federal Government has no right to require citizens of that state to purchase health insurance. Turnabout being fair-play, and all that.
JVW (a52530) — 7/23/2010 @ 7:37 pmWhat I would love to hear from the bench…
” What constitutional scholar thought the Feds have a case? “
Jeff S. (b15751) — 7/24/2010 @ 10:54 am“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have remained and entered the United States illegally?” the judge asked. “Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?”
I have seen this passage elsewhere at least a dozen times in the last few days. This is the only site where it is left in that the judge said Illegal Wierd Huh?
Lew Eliou (ac6f3b) — 7/24/2010 @ 3:24 pmIf state officials helping to enforce federal immigration law is unconstitutional pre-emption, what would that make ordinances that require local officials to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law?
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/26/2010 @ 11:46 am