From the Courthouse News Service, a federal district judge has rejected a motion to dismiss the suit brought by the Obama Justice Department against the state of Arizona:
PHOENIX (CN) – A federal judge rejected motions in which Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu sought dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new immigration law.
The complaint filed by civil rights groups, including Friendly House and the American Civil Liberties Union, contains sufficient allegations that S.B. 1070 perceptibly impairs the ability of the organizational plaintiffs to provide the services that the organizations were formed to provide, and as a result, there can be no question that the organizations have suffered an injury in fact, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.
“While Governor Brewer correctly points out that, for the most part, the organizational plaintiffs’ allegations involve threats of future harm, the threat of future harm is sufficiently imminent.”
Bolton found the civil rights groups have standing to bring the lawsuit because the “alleged harm to the organizational plaintiffs will occur if S.B. 1070 goes into effect, regardless of how it is enforced or applied.”
Bolton wrote that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.”
Bolton wrote that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.”
That places her firmly in the "Walker" category: judges who decide the issue before hearing the arguments, and too vain to realize the error.
Of her three categories, how does she not realize that only the first (race) is extra-legal, and its presence or absence is the question to be decided (not a reasonable a priori conclusion), and that enforcement on the other two bases serves the public interest?
If Federal judges are appointed for life, why hasn't someone the nerve to do what the Army has done for hundreds of years: put them someplace they don't like, and assigned work they detest ("you will be auditing potential speeding ticket overcharges from 1936") so that they either resign or cannot cause any more damage?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou'd think the ruling class would try to not antagonize voters this much this close to an election.
Hey, maybe Karl Rove really does remain at the helm: who timed this so the statists would be so in-our-face arrogant at moments it would do them the most PR harm?
I couldn't have said this a few years ago, but I have rising confidence that the right thing is going to happen in Arizona, and maybe even at the national level.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBolton wrote that “race, alienage, or national origin discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of S.B. 1070.”
That is idiotic. Of course alienage and national origin were motivating factors - it is an immigration enforcement law. Is this idiot judge going to delcare all immigration laws illegal b/c they are discriminatory? I'm an attorney, and because of judges like this, I have no faith in the rule of law in america. Most Judges are just politicians trying to push their own ideological agenda on the country. 90% of the time, I only have to know who appointed a federal judge to know how they will rule on a case, without hearing any arguments or doing any research into the law or precedent. That is telling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTwo of the first things that a republican majority congress should do:
1) pass a bill explicitly stating that the states can enforce federal immigration laws; and
2) pass a resolution saying that the intent of federal immigration laws is that states can also enforce the same.
If #1 is vetoed, then AZ can use #2 as evidence that congress did not intend to preempt the states from enforcing any immigration laws (which is a stupid argument anyway - I suppose the state's should also stop enforcing any other federal laws based on the pre-emption theory that once the federal gov't acts, the state's cannot act, so no more enforcing federal drug laws or other federal laws).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy declaring that the "threat of future harm is sufficiently imminent," the judge appears to be as clairvoyant as those who oppose Arizona's efforts to control illegal immigration. SB 1070 specifically prohibits discriminatory enforcement, so on what basis did the judge find that the violation of that provision by law enforcement officers is sufficiently imminent? If the judge is correct, then all laws suffer from the same defect, as all laws have the potential to be enforced in a discriminatory manner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo judges should be appointed for life.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse