Skip to comments.Judicial Activism in Arizona
Posted on 07/31/2010 8:02:25 AM PDT by T.L.Sink
The legal injunction that blocks key parts of Arizona's enforcement statute from taking effect doesn't pass the smell test. The ruling reeks of politics, not jurisprudence - in other words, judicial activism. The four stricken provisions mirror federal laws, so it's ridiculous for the Justice Department and the Clinton-appointed judge to to claim Arizona creates its own immigration policy. No, the embattled state crafted corresponding laws. And even if the barred measures did go further than federal law, so what? Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at cis.org ...
Governor Brewer should enforce SB1070 despite the ruling. Applying SB1070 by ignoring the ruling will merely uphold federal immigration laws the socialists/marxists in the executive and judicial branches refuse to obey in order to destroy our democratic republic and the Constitution.
If legal immigrants are forced under penalty of LAW to carry all the ID and visas and green cards etc. but ILLEGAL MEXICAN INVADERS are not, it seems there is NO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW as is required by the Constitution!
I’m sorry if I seem to be beating a dead horse,but,...
This judge has no CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to even hear this case.
States can be sued by the Federal government, but only SCOTUS can hear and rule on the cases.
AZ should just ignore the judge and her rulings.
Get MAD America, you've been had!
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
........AZ now has OPEN BORDER ......No I.D. needed ?........
I’m not a legal eagle, nor are most Americans, but I think we have some common sense. It’s as clear as can be that between a far-left presidency and an out-of-control liberal federal judiciary the law becomes no more than their misinterpretations make it. For example, you mentioned the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing makes it more clear than that that affirmative action (racial discrimination) is unconstitutional. But do they give a damn? No, onward with the agenda and to hell with the law!
Things are so out-of-control in AZ that even John McCain realizes it now. We went through the amnesty crap in 1986 with Reagan but it only made a bad situation worse because border security was NOT enforced and the result was MORE illegals! The present situation, to quote Yogi, is “deja vu all over again.”
I think the day of reckoning will come next November!
You guys may be right about that but maybe Brewer thinks it’s more pragmatic and less inflammatory to go thru the appeals process to get to the Supreme Court. If so, I think she has a point. The open-borders crowd would have field day if she refused to comply right now.
I was amazed when I first read that CFP article. But then I got to thinking... the AZ attorneys are no doubt a bright bunch. Surely they know about the parts of the law cited in that article. I wonder why they didn’t use that in their defense? I suspect there’s a very good reason and I’d like to know why.
But there is this one problem. To do my job competently I have to READ the decision. I know, I know. That's not necessary in the Obama Administration, or in the current Department of (In)Justice. But we have higher standards here at FreeRepublic.
John / Billybob
This site is a 'Rat trap to infect your computer :
You are beating a dead horse incorrectly. The Constitution does NOT require this case go immediately to the Supreme Court.
Did you read the information at the link?
It appears that the SCOTUS has ‘original authority’ over any case brought against a State.
Which, if I read it correctly, the lower courts have no jurisdiction over any state and therefore cannot hold hearings or trials when the State is a named plaintiff.
“Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
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. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction means the power to conduct the trial of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court).”
“In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:
...Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party. Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal .[boldface added, caps in original]’’
Meant to ping Mr Rogers...
Mr Rogers... see post #21
I suspect the lawyers working for Arizona have read the Constitution & know Constitutional law. If only the Supreme Court could try the case, I suspect they would have pointed that out by now...
So then, this article of the Constitution means what? Nothing?
Why would Alexander Hamilton bother pointing it out then?
Is it being interpreted wrong, or just being ignored because of ‘precedent’ being set by earlier cases?
(don’t know.. Just asking)
See the article here:
I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough to realize what seems obvious at first glance is not always true under the law.
I ought to add that I woke up at 3AM feeling sick, went to take some medicine and read on FR for 15 minutes waiting for the medicine to have some effect. This was discussed on a thread I didn’t bookmark, and multiple lawyers chimed in to say that any competent attorney could tell you that the case is going the right route.
I believe Congress & the Supreme Court have given the lower courts concurrent jurisdiction...but my non-lawyerness is at work. I could have it completely wrong.
Congress and the Supreme Court have colluded to provide joint jurisdiction between SCOTUS and District Courts for most of the cases where the constitution gives SCOTUS (and only SCOTUS) original jurisdiction.
SCOTUS has even turned away acting as trial court in State v. State cases. See Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976), where the Supreme Court denied Arizona leave to file the complaint.
That case also cites some of the earlier precedent. The gist of the justification for not taking original jurisdiction as the constitution demands is that SCOTUS is too busy and too important to take on trial work, what with all the evolution of the law in the United States.
Additional justification is that SCOTUS sucks at fact finding and conducting trials, so the litigants get a better product in a lower court.
As a counterpoint, one should be aware that Congress can increase the size of the Supreme Court, and that there is no reason the Supreme Court must hear any case "en banc" (all judges hearing the case and contributing to the decision). Trials are decided by single judges, and most appeals are decided by a panel of three.
“Exercise of its original jurisdiction is not obligatory on the Court but discretionary, to be determined on a case-by-case basis on grounds of practical necessity.”
It seems that indeed, the SCOTUS has relinquished some of it’s power to the lower courts. Especially in Civil cases.
Very unfortunate for Arizona, or any other state that wants to pass similar laws.
However, there are other points that can be argued in the Appellate court, such as presumed ‘intent’ of the law.
Something the Federal government would need to prove, which at this point, would be a little hard to do since there currently are no ‘injured’ parties to the suit.
(d) Identification of criminal aliens(1) The Attorney General shall devise and implement a system—(A) to make available, daily (on a 24-hour basis), to Federal, State, and local authorities the investigative resources of the Service to determine whether individuals arrested by such authorities for aggravated felonies are aliens;(B) to designate and train officers and employees of the Service to serve as a liaison to Federal, State, and local law enforcement and correctional agencies and courts with respect to the arrest, conviction, and release of any alien charged with an aggravated felony; and(2) The record under paragraph (1)(C) shall be made available—(A) to inspectors at ports of entry and to border patrol agents at sector headquarters for purposes of immediate identification of any alien who was previously ordered removed and is seeking to reenter the United States, and
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324(c) (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens) says:
c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part V > § 1252c (§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens) says:
(a) In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.(b) CooperationThe Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
Thanks for the info.
I read the link Mr Rogers provided and now see where SCOTUS indeed does relinquish power to the lower courts.
It seem obvious to me that a full legal transcript of the judge’s decision would be readily available if you contacted the appropriate authorities in his judicial jurisdiction. I depended upon legal commentators for a summary of the decision, as most of us are forced to do because of the constraints of time.