Gambling, I'm shocked.
Posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Court rules against Arizona immigration law Photo 1:09pm EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law in a ruling released on Monday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court did not abuse its authority by enjoining key sections of the state law that were challenged by the Obama administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
that is good that AZ has another avenue. If the feds won’t let them pass certain immigration legislation, then sue the fed for crime and damages by illegals. If it is the fed job to do, they’re handling it quite poorly.
Ok, so we here in AZ take all illegals in our state, including those in prison that we are paying for and not getting reimbursed for by the feds, and give them all a one man tent. Bus them all, non stop, to DC and drop them off at the White House.
If they were then the states could simply stop investigating, arresting, and prosecuting for any and all Federal crimes.
The entire point is not on all fours, and as such, it is not compelling.
If SCOTUS takes the appeal, you would be advised to bet on a reversal. In 2009, the Ninth was overturned 94% of the time.
Let me take a passing shot at that.
Doesn't that stand for the proposition that a state can take no action and is defenseless vis-a-vis losses, even above and beyond its monetary losses, when the federal government chooses not to resist foreign invaders?
Perhaps it is not believed they are invaders?
Ping!
No, it merely stands for the proposition that the Constitution means what it says, when it states in Article VI that,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In short, that means that states cannot are not allowed to creat their own laws to supercede what the Constitution or Congress have already passed into law.
States are not totally "defenseless," because they can (and do) take cases to court against the Federal Government. Costs and damages imposed on the States by the Federal Government's failure to properly address illegal immigration, is something that can be, should be, and is being, challenged in the courts.
YEP.
SCOTUS Time - before the Obamanation can appoint another Marxist, anti-American judge.
Gambling, I'm shocked.
I expected nothing else from the 9th. You don’t have to know any law to predict this court’s decisions.
I think I read somewhere that this court has had more reversals than any other.
It is considerably less predictable, however, what the SCOTUS will do, once the case reaches its desk...
A predetermined result: Ju cannot stop us, Greengo!
We knew this was coming from the 9th. No surprise here.
I said this on the other thread, but....the first thing I noticed (I haven't yet read the opinion) is that it was partly a unanimous opinion. Also, John Noonan voted to uphold the injunction. That's not a good sign. Noonan is about as conservative a legal thinker as they come and even as a sitting judge he was (and is) an OUTSPOKEN critic of Roe.
He's not a conservative shrinking violet, and the fact that he voted to uphold the injunction, probably isn't a good sing of things to come.
What a shock.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
Did you know a president can eliminate a court district?
The next non-traitor POTUS needs to eliminate the 9th district with a swipe of the pen.
“Get thee to the SCOTUS”
I only hope that when this case gets to the Supremes,
the “wise Latina” recuses herself for obvious prejudice.
Otherwise, the other justices will be accused of being racist.
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.