Judge Bolton: An F for the Arizona Decision – Rewrite It

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 31 July 2010 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

I would have commented on the Judge Bolton decision two days earlier, if I'd been able to locate a link to the full text. Ah, well.

John / Billybob

[Graybeard58]

This case goes next to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Not only is that the most reversed Circuit of all, it is reversed more often than all the other Appeals Courts taken together.

How long can the 9th sit on it, knowing their decision will ultimately be reversed? Is the original decision in effect while Arizona waits?

[Lurker]

From Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution:

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.

This idiot woman shouldn't even have heard this case. It should have gone straight to SCOTUS.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, this is not an Original Jurisdiction case. There are only about one of those per year, and this doesn't qualify.

John / Billybob

[goodnesswins]

save

[Lurker]

and those in which a State shall be Party

Was the State of Arizona a party to this suit? I must have missed the words "Original Jurisdiction" in my copy of the Constitution. Perhaps I have an outdated one.

[patton]

What do you think of the move to disbar Kagan?

[olezip]

This idiot woman shouldn't even have heard this case. It should have gone straight to SCOTUS.

Just who does she think she is? Charlie Rangel?

That is, she is talking psycho-babble explaining the unexplainable, and using enough words to sound like she knows what she is talking about. At least she thinks that she sounds intelligent.

[Lurker]

Sorry meant to say I know I DIDN’T miss the words “Original Jurisdiction”. They’re right there, plain as day. What kind of legal sophistry was used to keep this out of SCOTUS?

[danamco]

Ping: Screwing the law???

[longtermmemmory]

Just because someone is a judge does not mean they know the law.

this is french outcome decision making. She wanted a result regardless of what the law and constitution state.

[Gail Wynand]

Good analysis. It might be useful if you could, separately, also comment on Ms. Kagan’s “qualifications” and send them to deluded republican senators who think she is merely “philosophically different” but qualified for the supreme court. One or more of them seem to be non-lawyers who assume that if you were president of Harvard Law School and solicitor general therefore you must be qualified for the supreme court, a preposterous contention, and a dangererous one.

[FlingWingFlyer]

Bolton is obviously not very smart when it comes to the law. Apparently, she also “decided” that the Federal requirement stating that immigrants must carry their papers with them at all times is “unconstitutional” in her fantasyland.

[moehoward]

"The idea that federal incompetence requires all state and local governments to match its incompetence, has no support in prior cases."

IRRC there was similar reasoning in another case regarding the children of Illegals. Plyler? Something to the effect that since the law had been ignored for so long it was unreasonable to start enforcing it now.

[gulfcoast6]

The whole thing is nothing more than make them ALL voters, er, citizens, was just a matter of time until the truth came out, blame it on some wee little jerk sitting off in a wee little office. This don’t fly, done by the big little jerk himself..

[Congressman Billybob]

The Constitution doesn't use the phrase “Original Jurisdiction.” That's what the Court calls those few cases which meet the definition which is in the Constitution. Such cases are docketed in the Court with the case number of O-###. The cases concerning where Howard Hughes was legally living when he died in flight, were Originals.

Four states were suing each other to decide who would get the state estate taxes.

John / Billybob

[zipper]

If any of them had submitted a paper as ill-thought-out as Judge Susan Bolton’s decision on the Arizona immigration law, I’d have given them an F, and made them rewrite it from scratch.

SSSHHHHHHHHHHH! or she'll be the next supreme court nominee

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[shalom aleichem]

What I thought they should have done is summon a 3 Judge Court which is the trial Judge who drew the case, a Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and they pick a District Court Judge from the same state. Then the appeal goes straight to the US Supreme Court. I thought this was a must for challenges to a state statutory scheme.

Secondly, there is no mention (that I could see) in Judge Bolton’s ruling of the 9th and 10th amendments concerning State’s sovereignty.

[an amused spectator]

Isn't this just a symptom of a federal "judge" having to force the facts of a case into the Procrustean bed of a decision that has already been made?

Bolton arrived in the courtroom with her decision (whether on her own initiative, or on orders issued by :others"), and then she had to make up some blather about why her decision was "correct".

We see this same symptom ten years later in the LA Times and Washington Post and Clinton Administration v. Free Republic case. Morrow already had her orders, so she made up some BS about "four points", and ten years later, people are STILL posting full text articles all over the Interwebs, because the Clinton White House-crafted "decision" was tailored to smack down Free Republic.

Hell, I remember reading a full-text LA Times article on the FR "decision" posted on a Lefty website, laughing at FR while they flouted the very "bill of attainder" that apparently only applied to Free Republic...

Perhaps we need a judicial review device to deal with blatant a priori decisions like this.