Holder should drop the Arizona suit

The Washington Examiner ^ | July 16, 2010 | Editorial

[Scanian]

Virginia is now the most recent of nine states to unite in opposition to Attorney General Eric Holder's politically charged suit against Arizona's recently enacted immigration law. Don't be surprised if more states join the Arizona cause because Holder is now adding insult to injury by threatening a second suit against Arizona. This one would charge Arizona with racial profiling if the federal courts allow the state's statute to go into effect as scheduled on July 29.

[pepsionice]

I don’t think this is Holder’s card anymore. I think this is strictly a White House game. They can’t let Brewer win. If this goes through...every state will play it’s own rules about various things. So it’s a must-do by the administration.

Meanwhile....you have to imagine the Supreme Court justices are already reading up on the case and smiling. They could probably hear the case by 9AM and have a decision ready to pass out by 6PM that evening.

[DontTreadOnMe2009]

Holder should drop the Arizona suit:

No no let him continue

and continue

and continue...

[Paladin2]

"LP = lawful presence state, which are currently Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming"

Candidate states to join AZ in the lawsuit.

[thethirddegree]

Here in Pennsylvania, we have two bills being considered that would require employers to use e-verify to ensure that workers have a legal presence in the state.

[Joe Boucher]

Holder and Obammy are the best argument against affirmative action.
Neither of these two babosos should be driving a school bus much less in charge of anything.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

If AZ should not be holding people accountable to federal law on immigration, ie, handling a big sharp object like federal law...why does it have to honor federal law against profiling? Doesn’t that sorta “pre-empt” federal law too? :)

[LibLieSlayer]

HOLDER SHOUD RESIGN AND FACE AN INDEPENDENT COUNCIL.

LLS

[FrankR]

"This one would charge Arizona with racial profiling..."

He's charging AZ with "racial profiling", right after releasing the NBPP for "terrorism" and threatening to kill babies because the babies are white.

"RIF" Holder needs to be fired, prosecuted and sent for a stint in the Graybar Hotel.

[Labyrinthos]

It’s a lose-lose situation for the White House regardless of the outcome. If the Courts sustain the Arizona law, then it opens the door for other states to pass similar laws. If the Courts strike the Arizona law, then it opens the door for lawsuits challenging the “sactuary cities” for acting contrary to Federal immigration law.

[bert]

Holder can not drop the suit. The suit is known to be lost but must be continued to formally lose in court. The formal loss is the only way rabid moonbats can be mollifird.

[Vaduz]

Obama and his playmates are on the wrong train and on the wrong track going in the wrong direction at a high rate of speed crash to ensue.

[MarkL]

Governor Brewer should announce that since the DOJ believes that local, county, and state LE are not to enforce federal immigration laws (since that's the purview of the federal government), that she's banning the enforcement of ANY federal laws or statutes, since they too must be the exclusive purview of the federal government, until the casr is settled in court.

So the next time a bank is robbed, no police agencies should respond. Same with any drug busts or any other federal laws...

One other possibility here... Should the courts rule in favor of the DOJ, this could be the greatest power grab by the federal government in US history, which may be a part of the plan in the first place.

Mark

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It’s a lose-lose situation for the White House regardless of the outcome. If the Courts sustain the Arizona law, then it opens the door for other states to pass similar laws. If the Courts strike the Arizona law,

or even if it doesn't

then it opens the door for lawsuits challenging the “sactuary cities” for acting contrary to Federal immigration law.

It seems like there should be some way of introducing the "sanctuary city" issue into Arizona's defense in court.

Certainly a "sanctuary city" law is intended to limit enforcement of federal law, and might be struck down at the same time as Arizona's "non-sanctuary state" is upheld.

The Constitution charges the president that

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

IOW any US law, including immigration law, is a directive to the president to enforce it.

This lawsuit, IMHO, is a confession of intentional nonfeasance in office by this administration.

[La Enchiladita]

...then it opens the door for lawsuits challenging the “sanctuary cities” for acting contrary to Federal immigration law.

Hear, hear!! Why has this open defiance of federal law been allowed? It has been devastating!!!

[Rick_Michael]

Requiring e-verify is the most effective way to end illegal immigration. If they did that in 90% of the states, you’d see illegal immigration die-off incredibly.