Why isn't Obama and Holder going after Rhode Island? That's easy, they vote Democrat.
I think the whole open borders crowd is going to regret the day they filed this lawsuit. They're going to lose. They're going to set a precedent on this. They're outraging millions and millions of ordinary Americans. They're inspiring even the most spineless elected Republicans (not Lindsey Grahamnesty, who has a negative spine or less than a zero amount of spine) to stand up and fight the illegal invaders and their supporters.
Jan Brewer? Jan Brewer sure is doing a heck of a John Wayne impersonation. Who'd a thunk it?
Hopefully, in the bargain, the Court will also advise the federal government they’d better crack down on sanctuary cities or risk have no credible arguments whatsoever on local enforcement schemes on illegals.
Sanctuary cities are openly DEFYING federal law on illegal immigration and they are praised to high heaven.
Hello.
You’ll start seeing this more and more under this thugocracy -
selective prosecution based on political connectedness.
See "United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island? [Andy McCarthy]"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=
"If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.
Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?
Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?
They had three options, they could file the suit and hope to get a temporary injunction, or they could wait until they could build an enforcement action against AZ, or they could do both.
With waiting, the problem becomes the number of illegals that AZ would turn over to the feds up until a time that the Feds could secure a TRO. That number will probably be substantial, and I'm guessing the Feds have no intention of deporting anyone. The campaign commercials write themselves - "The state of AZ turned over 20,000 illegals in the first two months since this law has been enacted, and the Feds have deported none of them". - That puts the administration in an even worse predicament.
Also, by filing now without mentioning race or civil rights in any way, it gives the Feds a second bite at the apple at a later time. They bring a suit now based on the supremacy clause and the principle of field preemption, and when they lose that (as they surely will), they can file a separate action based on civil rights violations made when enforcing the law. Both suits have the same goals - to stop SB1070 - but they're based on two entirely separate legal principles, so they're separate actions. Holder is a communist, but he's a smart communist.
They may have voted against the GOP but the Governor is an Eisenhower Republican (in the true sense of the word) and the Troopers are following policy; Good Job “Gov. C”.
They may have voted against the GOP but the Governor is an Eisenhower Republican (in the true sense of the word) and the Troopers are following policy; Good Job “Gov. C”.