Posted on 07/23/2010 8:27:21 AM PDT by BradtotheBone
It didn’t take long for federal judge Susan Bolton to zero in on the holes in the Obama administration’s argument in their lawsuit against Arizona and its new must-enforce policy on immigration violations. Bolton, a Democratic appointee, shot holes in the Department of Justice’s pre-emption argument immediately, and in a broader sense wondered why the federal government concerned itself at all over Arizona’s get-tough policy on illegal immigration: “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Her comment came during a rare federal court hearing in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer (R). Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department’s argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is “preempted” by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative. “How is there a preemption issue?” the judge asked. “I understand there may be other issues, but you’re arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Oops! There it is!
...WOW!! this is a pleasant surprise....expecially since there are so many Lib activist judges these days.
This is what happens when you go to court on the basis of a political agenda, rather than a fact-based objection to the law.
Zer0 and H0lder know where she lives.
Blowing smoke. She will find it unconstitutional.
A fair question.
OWWW!!! that’s gonna’ leave a mark
Maybe she’s as tired of the illegal immigrants as the 75% of the American population is.
“Based on the initial reactions of Bolton, the White House may get laughed out of court more quickly than first thought.”
...yes, but the word is going out right now to the MSM to ignore or minimize this story.
Awesome. Indeed, what’s the public policy to NOT inquire as to immigration status for a non-federal crime?
I guess then state and local LE shouldn’t check to see if a supsect’s in any federal crime database because that is “pre-empted” too?
What a weakass argument Justice has. The profiling, as weak that was, stood a better chance than pre-emption.
As I said yesterday, it looks like this judge is trying to make a solid record in her court. No matter which way she rules, she will be appealed. She had the left all a twitter because she questioned some aspects of the AZ law and pushed them to lay a foundation for their argument. Today people are excited because she is slicing into the meat of the Obamination argument. All in all, this is shaping up to be a tough decision for the Appellate Court as she has no intent of letting them squirm and slide on an inadequate factual record.
Zing
I sure hope so.
As this quote comes from the Compost and seemingly makes no mention of illegality, I'd bet good money that it's a deliberate misquote.
“expecially since there are so many Lib activist judges these days.”
I’ll bet the phone lines were burning b/t the WH and her cell phone last night.
I heard Attorney’s lawyer is not all the great either.
Anyone know when a ruling is due?
Seems to me that sanctuary city nonsense trumps federal law too. Bet they’ll continue to turn a blind eye to what is a BLATANT slap at federal law.
Cindie
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.