Posted on 11/02/2010 7:51:59 AM PDT by Hojczyk
Federal appellate judge John T. Noonan Jr. interogated federal prosecutors today in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and questioned the government's claim and the district court ruling that parts of Arizona's immigration enforcement law preempted federal law.
"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," judge Noonan said during today's arguments. "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."
(Excerpt) Read more at numbersusa.com ...
These cases of states and the Feds deciding who has the power are huge for our future. It would sure be great to have the states establish legal precedent on a number of issues.
Another Federal judge deciding if we can defend our home....great. I suppose we’ll have to ask a Federal judge for a later bedtime at some point.
Ping.
From the original WaPo article: “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 government 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?’’
So judge, since bank robbery is a federal crime, should I instruct Governor Brewer to instruct all police departments in Arizona to not try to apprehend bank robbery suspects? Just wait for the FBI to show up?
Ping!
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority.
The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.
Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.
Don’t you know that statute no longer applies since they changed the alphabet organization “INS” to “ICE”? < sarcasm off now >
If the 2000 election was a referendum on the Elian Affair ( Cuban boy snatched and returned to Castro), then perhaps this election is a referendum on Arizona (Obama’s feds attacking a border state for enforcing its own immigration laws).
It’s a theory.
“I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”
Immediately after uttering these words the Justice should have remanded the Attorney into custody for CONTEMPT.
Republicans can now investigate Eric Holder. He is not going to push odumbi surrender of America so much now.
The GOP should arrest Holder and send him to Arizona’s pink underwear tent city jail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.