If I'm reading this correctly, it's just a temporary injunction until the court can finish hearing the case,
Here’s the Order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
Yea.. that's what it sounds like. All is not lost, yet.
How in the world, is it "controversial" to say illegals can't seek employment in a public place? That mystifies me??
Correct. The feds asked for a temporary injunction. This ruling is only the first of many in a lengthy legal process, and we should see this eventually elevated to the Supremes.
Yeah, I got that too Victor after reading for awhile, but I guess you can not stir up the masses if you put it in the headlines, damn media.
Question is, define temporary?
One year, two........indefinite?
You are correct that it is just a preliminary injunction. However one of the criteria a judge must apply in granting a preliminary injunction is that there is a high probability that the plaintiff will ultimjately succeed on the merits of the case. Put simply, she has said there is a good chance she will find for the Feds.
And you believe this? This is not a judge. Any judge that respects the law and can read with at least a 3 grade education could see the law is legal since it obeys Federal law.
Correct.
Now, think about this rationally. First, she DID NOT buy the argument of pre-emption. She only granted the injunction against certain provisions that seem to go right up to the line [or just over] that federal law peovides.
Second, this is a preliminary injunction - pending a full hearing. I have not read the ruling - but I have not seen where she has stated that the parts of the law covered in the injunction are unconstitutional. They are [at least] delayed as of now.
Third, this is going all the way to SCOTUS [either way] and it will have the final say. It is just Round One - being pretty much of a draw. Pre-emption NOT upheld, portions of the law "suspended" [at least for now].
Fourth, this is a HUGE election issue. DEM candidates in the Nov. election should be scared [considering 70% approval of the AZ law as is]. People will remember this and vote their emotions. I would not be surprised to see an all GOP congerssional delegation from AZ after November. Other states with immigration issues will be similarly affected.
Correct.
Now, think about this rationally. First, she DID NOT buy the argument of pre-emption. She only granted the injunction against certain provisions that seem to go right up to the line [or just over] that federal law peovides.
Second, this is a preliminary injunction - pending a full hearing. I have not read the ruling - but I have not seen where she has stated that the parts of the law covered in the injunction are unconstitutional. They are [at least] delayed as of now.
Third, this is going all the way to SCOTUS [either way] and it will have the final say. It is just Round One - being pretty much of a draw. Pre-emption NOT upheld, portions of the law "suspended" [at least for now].
Fourth, this is a HUGE election issue. DEM candidates in the Nov. election should be scared [considering 70% approval of the AZ law as is]. People will remember this and vote their emotions. I would not be surprised to see an all GOP congerssional delegation from AZ after November. Other states with immigration issues will be similarly affected.