Listening to him now....He is right on as usual.
The judge didn’t like the law and voided it for this reason, crafting a weak legal opinion to justify her decision. It’s as simple as that.
A liberal legislator wearing black robe.
I am not aware of any judge appointed or nominated by the clinton or obama cabal that would do right or better. Elections have consequences and we see the result of bad people being put into office. We can expect no different and no better.
Does this decision mean state and local law enforcement cannot respond to bank robbery calls, because that is a federal law violation?
Could we sue to prevent local police from responding to bank robberies? They’re spending local $$ to enforce federal laws after all. If I robbed a bank could I sue to keep any evidence I left behind like fingerprints, demand note, hair, or video images of my face private? ...like the “illegal” aliens recently exposed in Utah.
Just wondering...
Rush is right. The state should disregard the ruling and continue with the law forcing the federal gov’t to either arrest legally elected officials and defend illegal aliens or get out of the way.
Let me see...
This is a Government By The People and For The People (at least it used to be...)
The Government is selective enforcing the law...
Therefore, We The People should selectively obey the law.
This is a good example of why “case law” and “precedent” are such a crock-of-shit; instead of going to the laws themselves, they spout a bunch of history that is [at best] tangentially relevant... and then the case with dubious ‘reasoning’ is considered ‘prescient’ and may be used for some other judge’s faulty reasoning!
and America takes another one in the........
rlmorel In other words, appeal, appeal, appeal!
WE NEED A NATIONAL RALLY FOR THE 1070 IMMIGRATION ENFORMENT LAW THIS SATURDAY..or soon.
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.
"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?
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...
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.