Judge sharply questions federal argument against Arizona law

A federal judge sharply questioned the Justice Department's key argument that Arizona's immigration law interferes with federal enforcement of immigration law.

"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?" U.S. Judge Susan Bolton asked in Thursday's hearing, according to the Washington Post.

She also questioned the argument that federal law "pre-empts" (i.e. trumps) the Arizona statute.


"Where is the pre-emption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"

But Bolton also suggested that making it a state crime to lack immigration documents could violate a Supreme Court ruling prohibiting states from creating their own "immigration registration systems," the Los Angeles Times reports.

The Justice Department is asking Bolton to bar the law from going into effect next week.
Source: news.yahoo.com...

Source: www.drudgereport.com...
Under the title: Judge sharply questions federal argument against AZ immigration law...
I know, I know the Dreaded Drudge Report. But I think a Good Source of News early in the morning.

Any way, So it would appear we have a real Federal Judge asking some very common sense questions.
Many of us have stated here on ATS, and my friends Jean Paul Zodeaux, prionace glauca, Wayne60, Patriotgal, awakentired, Ghost of Chewie, centurion1211 and others have made the exact same statement, Federal Law Does Not "pre-empts" (i.e. trumps) Arizona State Law.
But you have the Obamas and his minions catering to the illegal and criminal portion of our society for Political gains.
The Political gains are one and only one, another race of people dependent to the Democratic Party for their well being.
Yes, Obama well give them Amnesty and circumvent our Constitution to give them the right to Vote.

You don't believe me, try reading:lubbockonline.com...

The Obama Administration is apparently trying to find a legal loophole that would allow the Department of Homeland Security the power to change the status of illegal aliens without involving Congress. This is apparently the “Plan B” for Obama if Congress will not give him a broad comprehensive immigration bill that would apparently grant citizenship and voting rights.

Now, you'll have the Obamanites coming on this thread and demanding to know What Political Gains is Their Dear Leader Obama goning to Gain? These my friends are the Obama Faithfuls the Worshipers at the Alter of Obama, they see no wrong be done in handing over our Country and Our Freedoms to Criminals.

But back to topic, Obama's D. O. J. Mr. Holder and all the whiners are going to lose.
Mr Holder should have known this going in, maybe he did and just wanted to continue his Butt Kissing.


Dear MODS: I used the search function results negative. If posted in wrong place please move, If I offended anyone you my delete.









[edit on 23-7-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by guohua]

I believe Arizona's Law SB 1070 will go into effect.
I also believe that the Worshipers and Followers of the Savior, Obama will not stop here. They will continue to try and circumvent our State Laws and Federal Laws for Obama and the Democrat Socialist agenda.

I firmly believe the case of Arizona vs. the U.S. Government will set the precedence for this nation's future immigration policy and stance.

It's good to see a federal judge approaching this matter by interpreting the LAW and not personal feelings/biases. We need more judges like this across the country.

I personally wish Arizona all the best and hope that rationality and the law works in favor of Americans this time.

GBD

From my last reading of the ammended law posted online.

I don't see what the problem is.

So Arizona wants to enforce laws that are already on the books? So what.

Ultimately the Federal Government is to blame, If the feds actually protected the border then Arizona wouldn't be doing what they are doing.

It's a response to some very serious problems in their state. I don't blame them.

Personally I don't think that deporting people is going to fix anything. But it's their time to waste.

reply to post by GuiltyByDesign


Thank You, Why was Arizona Pick Out to be Sued, When States like,,, Missouri have an even Tougher Law on their Books to enforce illegal immigration?

It's simple really, the Obama administration, that's the answer.
The Missouri law was enacted before the great Savior was elected.

Missouri is not on the border and therefore not a problem in the saviors eyes.

hes only concerned with getting them on this side of the fence and getting them papers. i dont think he cares where they go after that. essentially theres only 4 states that need to enact similar laws that would solve the issue altogether.

although it wont hurt for more states to jump on the bandwagon and give them less options once they are in.

Well . . . Unfortunately, this "policy" on immigration has been around way before Obama. It's not a partisan issue with this government, although the media and such will make it out to be. Without a catalyst/false flag, the citizens of the U.S. will never go for a NAU . . . and even then, I'm assuming many will fight. The U.S. doesn't want borders, because it's controllers don't want borders. Anyone standing in the way of this goal will be demonized, whether they call you a racist or a terrorist.

It's really not about Obama or the Dems. It's about population control and commerce.

It will be interesting to see where it will go next when the judge finds no merit to the DOJ's case . . . or will TPTB make sure that it ends here. My guess is that they want this to go as high as possible (Supreme Court), before stepping on the will of the people. That would have the greatest effect on creating such a catalyst to move us towards a borderless, but more easily controlled continent.




[edit on 7/23/10 by solomons path]

reply to post by LurkerMan


You're right and more states need to jump on board. I think more will when we win this fight with Obamas D. O. J. and ACLU and the other civil rights groups.

I have a feeling though, The Republic of California will never take up the fight, your state will be a Bankrupt Cesspool of Open Border and Sanctuary City Freaks and your Once Great State will be to poor and will be left to only Democrats and live off the Government like a Large Welfare State.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by guohua]

reply to post by guohua

It appears that the Fed's argument amounts to:
"We have precedence in this area, therefore the State cannot legislate in it under the "supremacy" clause of the Constitution.

IF that position prevails, what does this do to State regulation/criminalization of drug/"controlled substance" use and sale, already under the purview of Federal civil and criminal enforcement?

Would everyone charged or convicted of State crimes that come within Federal oversight, including alcohol, be entitled to "Constitutional" protection from such 'overreaching?'

Just wondering.

Originally posted by guohua

Now, you'll have the Obamanites coming on this thread and demanding to know What Political Gains is Their Dear Leader Obama goning to Gain? These my friends are the Obama Faithfuls the Worshipers at the Alter of Obama, they see no wrong be done in handing over our Country and Our Freedoms to Criminals.

i got a great email the other day comparing obama to bush,

i'd like to know how anyone can support obama after reading the email, it kinda confirms for me just what you said, "Obama Faithfuls the Worshipers at the Alter of Obama, they see no wrong be done in handing over our Country and Our Freedoms to Criminals."

hope its ok to post,

here it is

Would you have laughed?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceded, egotistical prick.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.

Originally posted by guohua
She also questioned the argument that federal law "pre-empts" (i.e. trumps) the Arizona statute.
******SKIP******
Federal Law Does Not "pre-empts" (i.e. trumps) Arizona State Law.

If Federal Law "TRUMPS" state, or even county laws, how do some counties prohibit alcohol to be sold in their county when the Federal Law says alcohol is not prohibited anymore and is legal?

Are these counties "trumping" the Federal Law then?

All this Arizona law is doing is strengthening the Federal Law against illegal immigrants!

I thought States could add to state laws/or penalties that may strengthen Federal Laws or penalties, but they couldn't do less than what a Federal Law required.

[edit on 7/23/2010 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by LurkerMan

 

You're right and more states need to jump on board. I think more will when we win this fight with Obamas D. O. J. and ACLU and the other civil rights groups.

I have a feeling though, The Republic of California will never take up the fight, your state will be a Bankrupt Cesspool of Open Border and Sanctuary City Freaks and your Once Great State will be to poor and will be left to only Democrats and live off the Government like a Large Welfare State.
[edit on 23-7-2010 by guohua]

I find it odd that out of all the states that are bankrupt in the United States, you feel that California would be the worst off. I'd think with all the resources and tourist attractions available in that state as well as about 70% of everything you see on TV being from there that once they find a more balanced budget to stick with, they would have the best chance of getting out of that hole. Other states like AZ, GA, and IL. on the other hand do not have that luxury.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Procession101]

reply to post by Procession101


The key statement there is: "once they find a more balanced budget to stick with, they would have the best chance of getting out of that hole." end quote

I don't know how their are going to balance a budget when they are losing businesses and most if not all of your once great amusement parks have the common family not being able to afford the tickets.

Many of your cities are over run with illegals and homeless, you pull up to a stop light and some homeless jerk spits on your windshield and demands money for cleaning it.

Your once great beaches are dirty with needles and homeless, your freeways are crowded 24/7 and in really bad condition and if you get a hotel room at least 4 star, you still have the chance of car damage, if they even have a parking lot, many demand you pay for parking in a garage.

My friend, your state as gone to Hell in a Hand-basket and come on, Hollywood, that's a joke, their all drug addicts or drunks and most of anything people watch today comes out of Canada, I hear. I don't watch T. V.

No, I don't see California coming back anytime soon, Unless they have the Balls to kick out the sanctuary city freaks and clean out their illegals, that is now and will known as the great nanny state.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Great E-mail, I would have Slammed Bush too, But that's me, I'm not a died in the wool republican.

I didn't bow to a portrait of Bush and he was not my Savior and I did not have a tingly feeling running up my legs for Bush Or Obama.

I do for me

Originally posted by guohua
Now, you'll have the Obamanites coming on this thread and demanding to know What Political Gains is Their Dear Leader Obama goning to Gain? These my friends are the Obama Faithfuls the Worshipers at the Alter of Obama, they see no wrong be done in handing over our Country and Our Freedoms to Criminals.

Originally posted by guohua
I also believe that the Worshipers and Followers of the Savior, Obama will not stop here.

Originally posted by guohua
simple really, the Obama administration, that's the answer.
The Missouri law was enacted before the great Savior was elected.

Good God man!

Get off the "Soap Box" and let's talk about WHY it should be legal for Arizona to enact this law instead of just trying calling some people names and trying to get under their skin by calling them names!

Lets talk about if this Arizona law IS legal!

I myself believe it is!

Its supporting a Federal Law!

Stick with the real question, "is the Arizona Law legal or not", and let's not turn this into just another "I can't wait until the Obama believers get here again" name calling threads!

Don't turn a good thread into a trashy thread!

[edit on 7/23/2010 by Keyhole]

reply to post by Keyhole


Keyhole, there is nothing to discuss, we know the law is legal and the feds know the law is legal, this is all being done for Obama and his Ego and his pride.

It is a challenge to try and change the mind of a Obamanite. They truly believe this law is racist and illegal and can not be enforced.

They are wrong, it as been enforced here for the past two years and no law suits have been file for discrimination.

It's not name calling, unless of-course you have feeling for Obama, then I guess you could conceder it name calling.

Any body in their right mind that has lived in a border state for any length of time would support SB1070, unless of-course you're an illegal or married to an illegal or believe in La Raza or Open Borders or Sanctuary Cities. But Arizona is not going the way of New York or California, We are not welfare or nanny states.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by guohua]

Originally posted by guohua
this is all being done for Obama and his Ego and his pride.

It is a challenge to try and change the mind of a Obamanite. They truly believe this law is racist and illegal and can not be enforced.

I guess you just don't "GET" what I was trying to say in my last post.

Good luck with this thread, I hope the "name calling" stops and this thread REALLY looks into the LEGAL issues of this subject and doesn't continue on the way your trying to get it to go.

If people do want to talk about "IF" Arizona's new law is legal or "WHY" it might not be, the way the judge in the article was saying, I might revisit this thread.

But until then , ....

P.S,
I live in Florida, there are A LOT of illegal immigrants here too!

[edit on 7/23/2010 by Keyhole]

This is the same Federal judge that is allowing Mexico to have a comment in the case.

This judge is a treasonist pig, expect Arizona to lose.