Posted on 10/06/2010 7:28:01 PM PDT by goldendays
Jan Brewer is asking a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the federal lawsuit. | AP Photo Close By SCOTT WONG | 10/6/10 9:57 AM EDT Updated: 10/6/10 7:21 PM EDT
In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.
The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.
“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.
“What’s even more offensive is that this effort has been supported by the U.S. Department of Justice. American sovereignty begins in the U.S. Constitution and at the border,” she added. “I am confident the 9th Circuit will do the right thing and recognize foreign interference in U.S. legal proceedings and allow the State of Arizona to respond to their brief.”
Brewer and her supporters have said the state law is necessary because the federal government has failed to protect the border and enforce immigration laws. But the Justice Department — with strong backing from President Barack Obama — sued to block the Arizona law on constitutional grounds.
Responding to the suit, a federal judge in July put some of the most contested parts of the law on hold, including a provision that requires police officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop for other offenses if there is “reasonable suspicion” they are in the country illegally.
Brewer, who has vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court, which will begin hearing arguments in San Francisco on Nov. 1, one day before the midterm elections.
The Arizona law is a top political issue nationally. Cities from San Francisco and Seattle to Baltimore have joined a friend of the court brief opposing the Arizona law, while 11 states — including Texas, Florida and Nebraska — filed an amicus brief backing the law.
In July, more than 80 Republican members of Congress signed their names to an amicus brief filed by the conservative Immigration Reform Caucus. They included Sens. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, David Vitter of Louisiana and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas, Steve King of Iowa and Trent Franks of Arizona.
Brewer’s motion should resonate among conservative legal scholars worried about giving foreign legal systems a voice in American jurisprudence. These concerns are a reaction to a school of legal thought arguing that American judges should look to foreign laws and courts for assistance in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, particularly in regard to basic human rights issues. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is arguably the leading spokesperson for this approach, as noted in a 2005 New Yorker profile.
The state of Arizona’s motion could also strike a chord with those on the right who are convinced that President Barack Obama (and Bill Clinton before him) want to make U.S. laws subordinate to international courts, particularly the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Under Clinton, the United States signed a treaty to join the court weeks before leaving office in January 2001, though the Senate never ratified his action. Months later, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the treaty, saying he worried foreign governments would try to prosecute U.S. troops for alleged war crimes.
Go Jan!
The Kenyan influence is even more objectionable than the Mexican influence.
I'm with her on the first part; I wish I could share her confidence that the 9th Circus Court will do the right thing and recognize that foreign governments have no standing in this matter. The 9th is as nutty as it gets.
How can these foreign countries have standing to join in the action? I thought that standing was required.
Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts
Feds say global governance at ‘critical juncture’
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=210541
Go Gov. Brewer! This sad, angry, demoralized Arizona native is with you.
Solution is simple. The new Congress shall simply not fund the 9th Circuit. Case closed.
In each of these countries (third world sh!t pits), the penalty for entering illegally is very harsh.
The same way as all those illegals are "standing" in hospital lines, school lines, food stamp lines, welfare lines, automatic-citizenship lines, etc.
We have to be "diverse", and "compassionate" when these illegals break into the USA......
she is absolutely correct. None of their dam business
These outsiders have no standing.
The 9th circuit Federal Court, representing the united States of America,is supporting foreign states (countries) in an action against an american State, concerning laws and regulations totally legally under the sole jurisdiction and sole discretion of the united States of America, and the several States.
That ought to play really, really well in national elections next month.
I certainly know it will for me.
They’re all traitors!
related:
Arizona is the new Israel
ExurbanLeague.com | Oct. 6, 2010 | Jon
Posted on 10/06/2010 4:49:47 PM PDT by inkling
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2602756/posts
alibi:
Deportations of illegal immigrants climb to new record
Washington Post ^ October 6, 2010 | Shankar Vedantam
Posted on 10/06/2010 5:54:40 PM PDT by Hawk720
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2602811/posts
“....These concerns are a reaction to a school of legal thought arguing that American judges should look to foreign laws and courts for assistance in interpreting the U.S. Constitution....”
Wondering why? Seems these “judges” should know the Constitution before they become “judges”. Why should foreigners know it better?
The US judicial system is thoroughly corrupt. Judges have a long track record of ignoring all law, precedent, common sense, public interest, and democratic vote to impose the will of the hostile elite. Judicial-fronted tyranny will never be overcome until the other branches and the people assert their Constitution obligation to defend the principle of law against corrupted judges.
In the Wonderland that Alice visited perhaps.
Congress doesn not fund individual circuit courts. It's all or none.
That, however, is thinking outside the box.
The entire circuit court concept can and maybe should be restructured or eliminated.
But we need to grasp the fact that this is now a huge country, and the Supreme Court could not handle all appeals cases as the final arbitrer.
But that's a whole other issue, because there has not been an effective set of checks and balances to deal with a runaway Supreme Court.
Who judges the judges?
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.