Posted on 07/28/2010 4:23:25 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Geez, do I really need to explain why?
susan bolton (I refuse to call her a judge) needs to have the next death in Arizona at the hands of an illegal hung tightly around her neck. She needs to be hounded to the outskirts of hell with it.
IOW, this leftist twit of a judge is a dishonest, incompetent, ideological FRAUD.
There is no evidence, no reasoning in application of statutes or constitutional principles.... nothing but this worthless judge’s personal political OPINIONS about what she wants.
Maybe you need to realize more fully where we are in terms of our nation...America has been killed...no doubt about that. We can only try to restore it. I doubt it will be done by being polite...what do you think?
Considering 25 Americans a day are killed by illegals; that shouldn't take long.
"a. Mandatory Immigration Status Determination Upon Arrest
The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”
Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” ...Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)
The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 - 2(B) with H.B. 2162 - 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.
As a result of this conclusion, the Court reads the second sentence of Section 2(B) independently from the first sentence. The Court also concludes that the list of forms of identification that could provide a presumption that a person is not an unlawfully present alien applies only to the first sentence of Section 2(B) because the second sentence makes no mention of unlawful presence: the second sentence states plainly that “[a]ny person who is arrested” must have his or her immigration status determined before release. A presumption against unlawful presence would not dispose of the requirement that immigration status be checked because a legal permanent resident might have a valid Arizona driver’s license, but an inquiry would still need to be made to satisfy the requirement that the person’s “immigration status” be determined prior to release."
So the 1st sentence and the 3rd sentence on all are connected to each other, but sentence #2 is totally independent of the sentences before and after, regardless of the written AZ intent.
Thanks Para-Ord.45.
Has anyone figured out : How do we compel the Federal Government to enforce the Law against illegals? What is the remedy when laws are not enforced?
My lawyer says I’d lose the suit, because you’d just claim that the “jest” you found objectionable was just off track. You “win,” and I hope your win does for you what Obama’s will do for him: get him fired!
But if they do, the feds will sue them for profiling, when what AZ will actually be doing is interfereing with the feds non-enforcement of federal AND state law.
bump
The solution is pretty simple, actually, and it will only amplify the “law of unintended consequences” that liberals think they can avoid by piling up “legal” laws.
While state / local LEOs are now [temporarily] prohibited from “determining the immigration status” of suspects, they can detain them and refer to or have the federal authorities determine what the legal / “immigration” status of detainee is. I am sure that a lot more people will be inconvenienced by this, including detainees who are legal residents or citizens, but also the federal system of identification will be overburdened by what police officers could have done and usually routinely do themselves.
In other words, use this judge’s decision to put the burden right back where it belonged in the first place - on the federal immigration law enforcement agencies. That would be legal and in keeping with the “letter and the spirit” of the judge’s preliminary injunction ruling.
Not to mention, help rile the masses just before the next election, because these actions will keep it in the news for the next 3 months...
That’s right. Susan the activist judge has blood on her hands. Shame on her.
I think both of you need to get a grip. Joking around about assassination doesn't help anyone, and for the record, I'm not the one who notified the moderator and had the post pulled. It's not my style...
I have a grip...I didn’t claim you notified the moderator...wouldn’t think anything of it if you had.
Illegal Aliens by definition can not carry documentation papers.
Only a legally admitted Alien can carry or fail to carry such papers.
This Judge is insane.
“How do we compel the Federal Government to enforce the Law against illegals? What is the remedy when laws are not enforced?”
Fire every elected official who refuses to do the job.
“What is the remedy?”
indeed.
Persistence.
The consequences of Susie’s ruling are so extensive as to change the very nature of our nation. Here are some:
1. Eliminates the need and authority of state governments;
2. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments have no validity;
3. Creates a separate class of people not bound by laws;
4. Kills any notion that we are a nation of laws; and
5. American citizenship is worthless.
America is officially and judicially a dictatorship. Anybody, nay EVERYBODY, reach their tipping point yet?
I REFUSE TO ACCEPT DICTATORSHIP. Susie can put this decision where the sun don’t shine.
I don’t think Rush endorsed the Old Hickory Option, but he did mention it somewhat forcefully:
Andrew Jackson: “Justice Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.