Federal Judge appears to think obama is nuts re immigration

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement

"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?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html?hpid=topnews

lmao...i was hoping they would get a rational judge like this, not some lefty flunky on the bench....

i wonder what the wise latina scotus justice would think.....
 
NigelTufnel said:
Heh.
Click to expand...

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled that key aspects of a law Arizona passed in April were unconstitutional because they intruded on the federal government’s authority over immigration policy. She blocked parts of the law that required immigration checks on people stopped by police, allowed police to hold individuals pending the outcome of such a check and made it a state crime for foreigners to be in Arizona without immigration paperwork.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40504.html#ixzz0vMbys6pi
 
Yurt said:
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement

"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?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html?hpid=topnews

lmao...i was hoping they would get a rational judge like this, not some lefty flunky on the bench....

i wonder what the wise latina scotus justice would think.....
Click to expand...

Yurtsie, self-pwned. LMAO.
 
Yurt said:
PHOENIX -- A federal judge pushed back Thursday against a contention by the Obama Justice Department that a tough new Arizona immigration law set to take effect next week would cause "irreparable harm" and intrude into federal immigration enforcement

"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?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072201548.html?hpid=topnews

lmao...i was hoping they would get a rational judge like this, not some lefty flunky on the bench....

i wonder what the wise latina scotus justice would think.....
Click to expand...

Way to call this one, Yurtsie!
 
LOL. I thought this was a new hearing for a second and was going to point out that it was a question. Judges often play Devil's advocate. It's a bad idea to read too much into a question, especially without the full context.
 
RStringfield said:
LOL. I thought this was a new hearing for a second and was going to point out that it was a question. Judges often play Devil's advocate. It's a bad idea to read too much into a question, especially without the full context.
Click to expand...

yeah...i thought it appeared from her line of questioning that she would give a proper ruling....now its at the 9th and lets see if they stand by their precedents
 
NigelTufnel said:
Hilarious.
Click to expand...

wow...you obviously have no sense of humor

thats how cases go...you can think a judge is leaning one way, and then surprise, it goes another...sometimes i'm right, sometimes i'm wrong....happens everyday across the nation and nigel thinks its funny

you need a life buddy :clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top