Arizona Due to File Brief Supporting Immigration Law in Face of Federal Ruling

foxnews.com ^ | Aug 26 2010 | Associated Press

[NoLibZone]

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers plan Thursday to file the first brief in their appeal of a ruling that put the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law on hold.

Brewer will ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling last month.

[SandRat]

Also at http://azstarnet.com/news/state-and-regional/article_a2ae7958-623d-5be8-ab66-6d48fbc0d141.html

[I see my hands]

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2: 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."

[NoLibZone]

Does this mean it must bee heard by the SC?

And only they can decide?

[taxtruth]

States should start leaving the union.This isn’t going to work out.

[NoLibZone]

Or does that mean only in cases effecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls ?

[mrreaganaut]

I agree: this should only be before the supreme Court!

[I see my hands]

I don't explain 'em, Mr. Seinfeld, I just exterminate 'em.

[mrreaganaut]

“Or does that mean only in cases effecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls?”

No, the suit is against Arizona, a state (and against officials thereof). Sovereign immunity and the 11th Amendment don’t apply. If Obama wants to sue a state, he has to go through the Supreme Court, NOT DISTRICT COURT!!!

[taxtruth]

That will be a total waste of time.I wouldn’t trust the SC/JOKE about any constitutional issue.

[NoLibZone]

LOL.

I did find this:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

Says only the SC can address SB1070, not a Fed Court.

Thank you.

[VRW Conspirator]

I...declare...sovereignty

[NoLibZone]

Thank you!

[ChildOfThe60s]

As many here have stated, asking for redress of our grievances in court is no longer an option. The time has arrived where states should simply ignore unconstitutional federal “laws”, mandates and executive orders.

There could not be a better, more worthy example of this than the feds telling AZ they can’t enforce federal immigration law. There should be no court battle. The feds should be challenged to put up or shut up. Dare Obama to send in federal troops.

The longer it takes before this happens, the greater the potential for violence.

[dalebert]

Pray

[EQAndyBuzz]

The whole Article 3 thing with Ambassadors and whatever is a load of crap.

If it applied to Arizona, Mark Levin would have tagged it a long time ago.

[mrreaganaut]

Of course, being totally candid, I should admit that a case might be made for concurrent jurisdiction of the district courts and the supreme Court, because the Constitution does not say "exclusive" original jurisdiction (though it's strongly implied, by the mere existence of the clause). However, Arizona should be able to have the case removed to the S.C. on this ground.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[Morpheus2009]

I don’t know about the Supreme Court. Numerous other judicial rulings make me feel hesitant to trust the Supreme Court, or other judiciaries for that matter, on deciding the morality of immigration. Maybe this was California, or Proposition 187 was an expected ruling to do little about illegal immigration. I could be wrong, but trusting the Supreme Court appears like a gamble to me.

[Georgia Girl 2]

AZ should ignore that Federal Judge. She does not have jurisdiction. Only SCOTUS has jurisdiction over litigation involving a Sovereign State. Just ignore the ruling and institute the law.