Liberal Judge-Liberal Ruling in AZ!!

I new that when I read Clinton appointed this judge to rule over SB1070!
Every single person I've talked to about this bill(by the way I live in Arizona)wants it. I almost wrote wanted but I refuse to give up ( come on Supreme Court) But I refuse to give up!!The strange but true fact is that this is first going to the 9th curcuit Court, Which is in San Fransisco, and they have actually ruled in AZ favor over previous immigration laws. I give it about a 27% chance of changing at all but I do believe that the Supreme court will even thins out.
Thats all must do more research

Is she really Liberal when a Republican talks highly of her?

Ironically, on the recommendation of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — an ardent proponent of SB-1070 — Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton back in 2000. During her confirmation hearing, Kyl stated:

Well, there is one person in our state who’s a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that’s Judge Bolton. And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved, and she is right in the middle of this important litigation right now. They will be very sorry to see her leave in Maricopa County Superior Court bench. So, I have some mixed emotions in helping to nominate or to confirm Judge Bolton, but that’s how highly thought of she is.

thinkprogress.org...

I am not so much sure that this was a liberal ruling so much as a federalist one. The impetus for this was to keep a strong and centralized policy on immigration enforcement and not to allow a patchwork system of various state rules over a federal unified front. In my view the argument made that the Supremacy Clause trumped the law is a fair one. Many whom believe strictly in state's rights forget about that part.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Well thats where AZ went wrong.. They should have just tried to stay with the fed bill thats already in place that no one uses instead of adding on to it.

Originally posted by madhadder545
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well thats where AZ went wrong.. They should have just tried to stay with the fed bill thats already in place that no one uses instead of adding on to it.

Exactly, at that point there would have been no violation of the Supremacy Clause, and it would have been ruled constitutional and in the interest of the people. Hence why only one provision was found to be in breach.

I wonder what will become of the now "infamous" SB 1070", Like I posted I think it has a better chance in the Supreme court, but
Political issues are so Scared of minorities that dought it.
I believr some parts should have been banned but the judge basically put things back the way they were before, which means "nuttin"

The chain of reasoning behind the OP:

1) I am a "Conservative"
2) Those who disagree with "Conservatives" are called "Liberals"
3) This judge disagrees with me
4) Therefore this judge is a "Liberal"

Now, if you are a racist and bigot as your signature implies, I am sure that you discussed this law with other racists and bigots, or at least those unfavourable to high immigration levels. Of course this company would be in favour of this law! Your statement has no more content than "All the Christians I have talked to think that Christ is the saviour!"

Of course, I could be wrong to assume that you discussed it with racists, xenophobes and nationalists - - maybe you discussed stricter immigration laws with your 'black friend'!

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The chain of reasoning behind the OP:

1) I am a "Conservative"
2) Those who disagree with "Conservatives" are called "Liberals"
3) This judge disagrees with me
4) Therefore this judge is a "Liberal"

Now, if you are a racist and bigot as your signature implies, I am sure that you discussed this law with other racists and bigots, or at least those unfavourable to high immigration levels. Of course this company would be in favour of this law! Your statement has no more content than "All the Christians I have talked to think that Christ is the saviour!"

Of course, I could be wrong to assume that you discussed it with racists, xenophobes and nationalists - - maybe you discussed stricter immigration laws with your 'black friend'!

So do you think the judge ruled against it because she is in favor of high immigration levels?

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap


Did you just pwned him? haha I read his statement and all agree with him. Then I read your post about the signature and looked at it myself. I just LOL'd.