Skip to comments.Judge questions Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona immigration law
Posted on 11/01/2010 1:17:31 PM PDT by Palter
A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about the Justice Department's lawsuit over Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," Kneedler responded.
The interchange came at a hearing on the Justice Department's efforts to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect of being in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued an injunction in July that blocked the law's most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to Monday's hearing.
With Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, so bluntly stating his views, the government's chances of getting the injunction upheld may rest with two other 9th Circuit judges. One, Carlos T. Bea, is also a Republican appointee, while Judge Richard A. Paez is a Democratic appointee.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Vote the corrupt bastards OUT!!
Rebellion is brewing!!
Do they have a “test case” to use to overturn this law?
Even the homosexuals needed “Lawrence v. Texas” and a lousy DA to be able to elevate their case to the supreme court to strike down the law.
If it is just a statute on the books, can it be “tossed out by the courts”?
ENEMY, ENEMY, ENEMY!!!!!
Only this administration would mount a legal campaign against a law that says the state will enforce Federal Law!!!
If California passes Prop 19, I assume the same administration will look the other way despite the fact it in violation of federal law.
(not that I want to open WOD discussions — that is for another thread)
“Bea and Paez questioned lawyers from both sides during Monday’s argument, and their positions on the case seemed unclear.”
I need to read no further. The reporter is another white liberal who cannot believe Hispanics, or anyone, don’t believe and act as white liberals think they should believe and act.
Looks good for Arizona.
President Reagan, if by chance your surfing FreeRepublic on Heaven's Internet, thank you!!!!
Hehe....good to see that the jerks at Justice aren't able to completely game the system.
Carlos Bea is an immigrant from Spain, for God's sakes, who nurses a grievance about almost being deported way back when.
Paez is a screaming Reconquista, desperate to make the Gringos unwelcome on "his" dirt.
All the chatter is just cover, similar to what Susan Bolton did. In the end, they will gut the law, and then let Arizona go the SCOTUS. The intent is try and kill as much of it as possible, make the state fight to reinstate what they can.
What a smack down! In essence he's calling the gubbmint lawyers idiots.
In other news, Felipe Calderon accepted $10,000,000 in un-taxed receipts via check, wire and cash from illegals in America.
The world is absolutely upside-down.
Sorry, Judge, that is not the argument. AZ is not saying it can enforce federal law. In fact, that's EXACTLY why it passed a state law on this matter. AZ is enforcing state law; it just happens to be mostly identical to federal law.
AZ is pointing to the lack of federal enforcement of federal law only because the federal government is arguing preemption. IOW, apart from the legal issues, as a matter of fact the feds can't show "preemption" -- which is the federal government's only constitutional proffer -- if the feds don't even enforce their law.
How in Hell's Bells can the feds claim that AZ is exercising its own authority in a way that "harms" or even impinges on federal authority, when the feds are not IN FACT enforcing their authority in that area and IN FACT have repeatedly refused to enforce their own laws in that area?
So, in response to your analogy, Your Honor, the answer would be: No, CA cannot enforce federal income tax laws if the feds don't enforce them. But CA can pass state income tax laws identical to federal laws and enforce them. And if the feds come in and say they can't because the federal law preempts them from doing so, they can logically point out that the feds don't even enforce the law they claim is preempting -- i.e., holding the legal ground.