Posted on 06/25/2010 8:40:07 PM PDT by SandRat
All five constitutional challenges to Arizona's controversial new immigration enforcement law will be heard by one federal judge in Phoenix.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton already was assigned two of the cases. On Friday, she ordered the other three transferred to her.
The cases at least for now remain separate, but Bolton says it's clearly in the "interest of judicial economy" to have one judge preside over all five. She also notes that all five cases remain in early stages of consideration.
The Arizona law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by a court. Its provisions include a requirement that police officers enforcing another law to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
AZ SB-1070 PING
Does anyone know this judge? I did find this:
“Susan Bolton is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. She joined the court in 2000 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton.”
Also, she was nominated by Senator Kyl (RINO).
I’m afraid to ask... what do we know about her... I’m afraid to look...
Crin-ton judge, that says everything.
“Susan Bolton is a federal judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
We’re afraid to ask... what do we know about her... we’re afraid to look...
There’s always the appeal process.
If she voids the law, she will also have to void the same federal law that is not being enforced.
That’s what I’m thinking. Hasn’t it always been the duty of the federal government to protect our borders?
Go to the following link at the Robing Room to read reviews by people who have endured her courtroom. Not pretty reviews and one said she is ALWAYS pro government.
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=91
Kyl is not a RINO
And if that happens, we have no immigration law whatsoever....
Yes. Obama ignores many of his requirements as POTUS.
Evidently she ruled in favor of Sheriff Joe at least once.
No, she could say that immigration enforcement is solely a federal power (like declaring war or making treaties) and void the state law without touching the federal one.
Ping!
So? I don’t believe it.
That would be a dangerous argument, because if they can't be defended, then by definition they aren't legal borders. So if such a holding stood, it would strip away the literal existence of state borders, and I don't believe that could be justified.
That would be a dangerous argument, because if they can't be defended, then by definition they aren't legal borders. So if such a holding stood, it would strip away the literal existence of state borders, and I don't believe that could be justified.
huh? no shes not being bought off yEAH right.
That would then, it seems, strip all law enforcement from reporting illegals to the ICE and Border Patrol.
If that is the ruling, would that not mean that no Federal law may be enforced by local police? Bank robbery, Fire arms violations, the list is long.
It would also mean that the federal government could simply hold up their hands and say we won’t enforce anything we’re supposed to, but if you do you are in violation of federal law. The whole thing is insane. Behold our brave new world shaped by the corrupt legal industry.
Senators don't nominate anyone for anything. I'm not sure what you mean, in this regard. Kyl certainly may have voted to confirm her. But all things considered, the vast majority of judicial appointments are confirmed virtually without opposition, especially at the district level.
I believe you're hinting at a supremacy clause argument. After reading the law, I don't believe that's going to fly, at least not at the appellate level, but who knows what the wacky district judge could do.
The law certainly doesn't go beyond any federal statute, nor does it try to actually deport illegals. The law quite clearly calls for people who are identified to be in the country without the proper federal authorization to be turned over to federal authorities.
If that's the argument she asserts, what is to keep another judge from disallowing state authorities from arresting suspects with federal warrants? This is why this argument will go nowhere. The feds would have been better off waiting until they could build an enforcement case, rather than attacking the statute on it's merits. But, that wouldn't placate the ravenous wolves on the far left.
They're going to lose this case, and in the process actually strengthen the AZ law.
Senators do recommend and/or endorse the federal judicial nominees in their states. I don't think it has any official weight, but their recommendations are often followed, so they do have significant influence in who is nominated.
.
Let me tell you why AB 1070 is the right kind of law.
The border is like a gauntlet. If you run it and get to the interior or if you overstay a visa, the odds of you being caught are pretty low. Actually really really low. We have virtually no interior enforcement. AB 1070 provides this.
So, even if the feds did decide to perform interior enforcement, they wouldn’t be very effective. State and local law enforcement authorities are much better suited as they are the people most likely to come in contact with illegals, especially the criminal variety.
If you think interior enforcement is not needed, I seem to remember 19 hijackers that I wished had been challenged by law enforcement folks and maybe asked their legal status.
One of a Senator's greatest powers, is the power of the "blue slip". A senator from the home state of a judicial appointee, may "blue slip" that appointee, which is effectively their own personal filibuster. So long as that Senator is in office, that judicial appointee may not be confirmed.
In this instance, Kyl didn't do that. BUT, that is actually pretty rare that it's done, perhaps just one in 50 or more nominees are "blue slipped". You have to be a good ways out of the mainstream to get "blue slipped".
If she rules against the law and the appeals are upheld, then all federal laws are void then. Why should law-abiding Americans follow the law when our own government doesn’t? We’ll be the equivalent of Somalia.
And the Feds have no where near enough personnel to really enforce immigration laws all over the US. The only possible way that could be done is with the involvement of state and local law enforcement, of which there are hundreds of thousands already on the job.
Not wanting local law enforcement personnel heavily involved is just another way of saying they don't want any serious interior enforcement.
“There’s always the appeal process.”
AZ is in the 9th Circuit. Encouraged?
But all of this litigation will make its way to the SCOTUS.
in the end, it’s up to the people of the state to determine whether or not they will follow the dictates of the fed.
and if those dictates continue to put the residents of the state in jeopardy... they would be fools to follow them
civil disobedience is the right and responsibility of every citizen if the government gets out of control. it is also the final step before crossing the line... to water the tree.
She certainly could not assert that AZ has no right to uphold a federal law - for if she did, then AZ [and all other states] would not have the right to enforce any federal law.
I suspect [if she does overturn] that it would be upon the procedures that form the "resonable suspicion" to detain.
If AZ has the procedures written tightly - she probably would not overturn. 'Course, if she did, it would certainly be appealed by AZ.
Awfully white of her to take on the role of praetorian agitator and officious ....
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton is but the first stepping stone on the way to the Supremes.
“in the end, it’s up to the people of the state to determine whether or not they will follow the dictates of the fed.
and if those dictates continue to put the residents of the state in jeopardy... they would be fools to follow them
civil disobedience is the right and responsibility of every citizen if the government gets out of control. it is also the final step before crossing the line... to water the tree.”
Sweet music to my eyes.
Well, that would certainly please Hussein.
Hmmmm..... good point.
Au contraire, federal judicial candidates are routinely put forward by Senators from the area concerned. Is “nominated” the technically correct term for it? I don’t know. In any case, it is the word often used. It’s more of a backroom consultative procress than a formal legislative process at that stage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.