[Jim Robinson]

Vote the corrupt bastards OUT!!

Rebellion is brewing!!

[a fool in paradise]

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”?

[subterfuge]

A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about the...Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.

ENEMY, ENEMY, ENEMY!!!!!

[freedumb2003]

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)

[Shermy]

“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.

[Paul Ross]

Bump!

[FrankR]

A judge is supposed to be impartial, and non-partisan. This thing of shopping judges until you find one that democrat picked is ludicrous. Any judge making a ruling on ideology should be removed from the bench.

The Congress is full of lawyers, yet they can't write law that is impartial and concise enough for a judge to use to make a ruling? Is everything up to conjecture now?

If the law is properly written, there shouldn't be this much difference in the "opinions" of various judges. Kind of gives us an idea of how obamacare is such a train wreck, over 2,000 pages of gobbledegook.

It's time to have a housecleaning among Federal judges, they're all just a bunch of political hacks strategically placed to further the socialist/progressive agenda.

The feds are shopping for loopholes in a situation a 5th grader is smart enough to figure out, illegals should not be in this country. If Arizona cannot state who can cross their borders, then why do we even have states at all?

[Red Dog #1]

"...an appointee of President Ronald Reagan..."

President Reagan, if by chance your surfing FreeRepublic on Heaven's Internet, thank you!!!!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

With Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan

Hehe....good to see that the jerks at Justice aren't able to completely game the system.

[Regulator]

Don't get your hopes up.

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.

[TigersEye]

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."

What a smack down! In essence he's calling the gubbmint lawyers idiots.

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[wac3rd]

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.

[fightinJAG]

Bea did not make his position clear during Monday's argument, but he sharply questioned Arizona's attorneys. "Your argument that a state can take a look at whether the federal governernment is not enforcing its laws....you can enforce laws for the federal government?" he asked. "If I don't pay my (federal) income taxes, can California sue me?''

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.