Posted on 11/10/2011 9:52:48 PM PST by Hunton Peck
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to stay out of a lawsuit involving Arizona's immigration law, saying lower courts properly blocked tough provisions targeting illegal immigrants.
The state law is a challenge to federal policy and is designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, the department's solicitor general said in a filing with the justices. Arizona says the law is an effort to cooperate with the federal government.
***
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is seeking to overturn the judge's decision and wants Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that the issues are of compelling, nationwide importance.
The Justice Department disagreed.
"That several states have recently adopted new laws in this important area is not a sufficient reason for this court to grant review" of the first appeals court decision affirming a judge's preliminary ruling against part of one of those state laws, Justice told the high court.
(Excerpt) Read more at centurylink.net ...
Checks and balances...
The executive branch and the judicial branch...
I vaguely remember learning something about that in college..
guess I was mistaken...
PING
This is about as plausible as Joe Paterno saying on Wednesday:
"I'm retiring at the end of the season - so there is no reason for the Board of Trustees to do anything. They should move on to more important things ..."
Considering that Holder’s “Justice Department” has helped create problems in Border States with operation “Fast and Furious” and God only knows what else, I think the SCOTUS should get involved. The DOJ has a conflict of interest here and appears to be on the wrong side of the laws it insists it should have sole enforcement powers over.
The executive branch and the judicial branch...
I vaguely remember learning something about that in college..
guess I was mistaken...
You missed the "super-secret" clause in Article III of the Constitution, also known as the "Obama\Holder" clause, which states:
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court - except when it conflicts with Obama and/or Holder, in which case, they can pick and choose the inferior court decisions that agree with their point-of-view instead ..."
You try telling a judge what he can and can’t do...
Impeach Barack Hussein Obama Now!
They werent teaching that yet back in the late 70s when i was in school...
:(
Ron Paul was right to call Obama an elected dictator.
The President is not supposed to be an elected dictator.
This executive branch sure has brass ones and not it a good way...they need to be put in their place and only 1 of 3 branches of government..
Sounds like red meat offered to a wolf to me. There has to be some USSC justices that will take this as an offense...hint hint, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
A Special Prosecutor needs to bring RICO charges against Holder and his merry band of Fascists at Justice.
Meh. Standard Cert. argument BS.
I don't think there is a big enough set in DC to even suggest it, but I agree.
You’re correct. I didn’t mean for my comment to suggest that there’s anything out of the ordinary in Justice’s motion in itself — only to comment on the irony of even a routine motion of this sort coming from a department (in an administration) which so routinely tries to usurp the authority of both states and other branches of government.
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.