SB1070 Struck Down in Arizona

[Limbo]

I'm surprised that Ace hasn't been around gloating about a judge striking down key provisions of the Arizona immigration law, SB1070.

The justification from the judge sounded like the liberal talking points that have been circulating. Undue burden on the police, blah blah blah... How can enforcing the law be an undue burden for law enforcement? That's their stinking job!

Turns out that the judge is a Clinton appointee, big shocker.

[Rec]

Give him time,,,,,long range, more fodder for the elections, more change negative for the Democrats!

[LedZap]

It doesn't matter...parts of the law indeed are now in effect. One is that Sanctuary Cities in Arizona are now banned. And the police , have to act on reasonable suspicion that a law may broken...in this case an illegal alien. So , if they think the person they pulled over for something done illegally , they can check for legal status of that person.

[Skeltered]

i wish the law would aggressively pursue illegal immigrants in florida.

[Patt]

I'm on a Zo kick today... I guess.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3T0uhrzZTU&feature=channel



Limbo - big point here: TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. On to the Appeals Court and then on to the Supremes. :D

[Patt]

Here is how The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395314079925720.html) characterizes the holding:
A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents—including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.The decision was a surprise to me in that it struck the provision -- which was most controversial -- as to checking immigration status of persons already arrested or stopped for some other offense if there were a reasonable suspicion that the person was in the country illegally.

In rejecting the provision as to checking the status of persons arrested, the Judge found that the legislative language, which had been adjusted by amendment, was not effective (at pp. 14-15):
The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.) Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence w s identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly."The result of this statutory interpretation was that the Court found the procedure -- as written -- to interfere with the federal immigration scheme:
Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.The Court also opined on potential 4th Amendment issues with the law, and used that as a second basis for the decision (at p. 16):
Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification.Similar reasoning was used in striking the provisions as to status checks during stops (short of arrest).

The decision has to be viewed as a near complete victory for opponents of the law, as it restricts the state from routine and compulsory checks of immigration status as a matter of legislative mandate.

The decision would not, as I read it, prevent police from checking immigration status in a particular case, but would prevent a statewide system to do so.

The result of the decision will be to have a chilling effect on law enforcement officers who, in the absense of the law, would have checked immigration status based on reasonable suspicion anyway. Enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona, as a result of the decision, will be even more difficult than prior to S.B. 1070.

The only portions of the law [added: other than those not specifically challenged by the federal government, see pp. 2-3] upheld were:
A.R.S. § 13-2929: creating a separate crime for a person in violation of a criminal offense to transport or harbor an unlawfully present alien or encourage or induce an unlawfully present alien to come to or live in Arizonaand
A.R.S. § 28-3511: amending the provisions for the removal or impoundment of a vehicle to permit impoundment of vehicles used in the transporting or harboring of unlawfully present aliens

[freakazoid]

I'm surprised that Ace hasn't been around gloating about a judge striking down key provisions of the Arizona immigration law, SB1070.

The justification from the judge sounded like the liberal talking points that have been circulating. Undue burden on the police, blah blah blah... How can enforcing the law be an undue burden for law enforcement? That's their stinking job!

Turns out that the judge is a Clinton appointee, big shocker.

My answer is simple...

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Patt]

It's going to go to the Supreme Court. Re:There are two ways in which a case can be referred to the Supreme Court. The first is a direct appeal from the lower federal courts if a constitutional issue is deemed to be involved. The second way is by petitioning for a writ of certiorari. This means that the records of a case in a lower federal court are sent to the Supreme Court for review. Such a writ can only be granted with the agreement of four justices of the Supreme Court. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito - all are considered constitutionalists regardless of the political spectrum. All also come from the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court acts as a court of original jurisdiction in very rare cases only. It would be extremely unlikely that a case would go straight to the Supreme Court and bypass the lower federal courts. Article III, Section 2 is very clear when it states that this only happens in: "cases affecting Ambassadors, public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party."

States have always jealously guarded their rights. The Tenth Amendment (1791) gave them the right to govern all aspects within their state not specifically given to the federal government under the Constitution. Despite this power, Marshall, as a strong federalist, attempted to use every opportunity he had to reaffirm the power of the Supreme Court.
They most important case he presided over was Martin v Hunter’s Lessee in 1816 whereby the state of Virginia, via its highest state court, claimed that state governments and the federal government were equal and therefore the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the highest court of a state. Marshall stated that every state had lost part of its sovereignty when it accepted the Constitution and therefore all states were subject to the rulings of the Supreme Court.

An equally famous case involving Marshall was McCuloch v Maryland in 1819. Maryland had imposed a state tax on the National Bank of America. If the bank had paid this tax, it would have been put out of business; hence it refused to pay. Marshall argued that the federal status of the bank meant that it must be allowed to carry out the duties required of it and the Supreme Court declared the tax unconstitutional. This ruling established the Supreme Court’s right to review state governments. It has been in the realm of state law that the Supreme Court has been most active in its use of judicial review. Since the era of Marshall, the principle of judicial review within America has largely gone unquestioned.


:D Just a little light reading - he he he

[beelzebub]

[/FONT]

Cut and paste all the way FLY girl...Try toting the party line elsewhere. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/supreme_court.htm)

Please,... you are such a republican supporter!!!!! Its disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to SPIN SPIN SPIN... please... thats' really ignorant here!

[Patt]

Cut and paste all the way FLY girl...Try toting the party line elsewhere. (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/supreme_court.htm)

Please,... you are such a republican supporter!!!!! Its disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You want to SPIN SPIN SPIN... please... thats' really ignorant here!

Adding background on what the Supreme Court does isn't partisan, MISTER. It's informative.

What, are you afraid of facts?

You have a problem with History Learning Site (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/index.htm) > American Politics (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/american_politics.htm) > Supreme Court

If so --- you have more than partisan problems. You're pissed cuz I got there first - LMAO

[beelzebub]

Adding background on what the Supreme Court does isn't partisan, MISTER. It's informative.
What, are you afraid of facts?

Adding background!? WHO ARE YOU to say so. Get a life... you are nothing more than a REPUB agent and you will diminish with their changing interest unless you ONCE AGAIN turn your coat.

Facts?!?!?!? - Shit thats relative as YOU WELL KNOW.... perhaps you don't ... sad....


"If so --- you have more than partisan problems. You're pissed cuz I got there first - LMAO "

You are posting as I post..... keep adding shit I am not... what ?????? Repubs have you on a tight leash???? You are not in Florida or are YOU? I will have a friend to check.

You dont have the FACTS about this SHIT!!! go and study and STOP posting bullshit!

[Patt]

Adding background!? WHO ARE YOU to say so. Get a life... you are nothing more than a REPUB supporter and you will diminish with their changing interest unless you ONCE AGAIN turn your coat.

For a guy who's in the education field, the phrase 'unless you once again turn your coat' is really rather droll.

Try that again, I'm sure you can do better.

As to the background I added, wherein the cases are given that state the Supreme Court does have the right to look at and judge State v Fed Cases, yeah, the info I added is important. I don't want people thinking that the only thing that matters is what the Arizona State Supreme Court or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals says on the 10th Amendment as first, this is challenged by the Federal Government and second, the ramifications to other states who are indeed looking to Arizona's case to allow them to protect their citizens because the Federal Administration refuses to enforce the law.

That's NOT a partisan issue. If you think it is - no wonder I consider liberal thinkers to be brain dead. Because, you'd have to be to see anything I've given as partisan in that regard.

Stop with the hating, dude.

[Patt]

You are not in Florida or are YOU? I will have a friend to check.

I'll post anything I like you forum Nazi. Speaking of adding stuff after you post --- look what you added since I quoted you.... http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/patteurope/LG%20Smileys/rolleyes.gif

And yeah - today I AM in Florida - what the hell of it? Check all you like.

I'll be up in Wisconsin soon helping to oust Feingold from the Senate. Then a run over to Ohio and then still further south into Arizona with many stops along the way.

You have a problem with people actually doing what they can to better their nation - no matter where it takes them? Something other than parking their asses on the net and pontificating?

Yeah - I actually WALK the walk. Or, didn't you know that about me?

http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/patteurope/LG%20Smileys/Tongueout-1.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlmmVuxTHSA

[beelzebub]

I'll post anything I like you forum Nazi. Speaking of adding stuff after you post --- look what you added since I quoted you.... http://i852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/patteurope/LG%20Smileys/rolleyes.gif
And yeah - today I AM in Florida - what the hell of it? Check all you like.
I'll be up in Wisconsin soon helping to oust Feingold from the Senate. Then a run over to Ohio and then still further south into Arizona with many stops along the way.
You have a problem with people actually doing what they can to better their nation - no matter where it takes them? Something other than parking their asses on the net and pontificating?
Yeah - I actually WALK the walk. Or, didn't you know that about me?]

Interesting video.

BTW - I am not saying you don't right to post anything you want. Of course you do.

I just get iritated with your slanted views. According to you: "Everything republican is good and everything democrat is bad".

Its not true. Both have good qualities and bad qualities.

And the location check - thats just me being an ass ;-) I dont have friends checking peoples location.... I don't care where yall are.

[Patt]

Interesting video.

BTW - I am not saying you don't right to post anything you want. Of course you do.

I just get iritated with your slanted views. According to you: "Everything republican is good and everything democrat is bad".

Its not true. Both have good qualities and bad qualities.

And the location check - thats just me being an ass ;-) I dont have friends checking peoples location.... I don't care where yall are.

Well, will wonders never cease? Looks like you pulled your head out of your butt. GOOD.

I am going to advocate for what I think is right. You will do the same. What's wrong with that?

Nothing.

[beelzebub]

Well, will wonders never cease? Looks like you pulled your head out of your butt. GOOD.

It was never in my ass Patt... how crude!?........................ You express extremist Republican stances and somehow you think your are safely in the correct....... hate toto tell ya that if my ass is then your head must be up you ass too. You are SO skewed by the Republican mentality and their courtship of you that you don't realize the extremist your are becoming (or have become). Keep in mind that many intellectual have fallen for the same ploy to gain credibility.


I am going to advocate for what I think is right. You will do the same. What's wrong with that?
Nothing.

I say more power to you but IMHO: I think you are BIASED with respect to politics! Anyone that can adhere the way you do to the Repub party has to be. You are a true believer in everything your Repub party does... I say your party sucks in many ways... but alas,.... I am sure that would fall on deaf ears even if supported with evidence.

I believe the Republican party has screwed this Nation over IN LIEU OF THE "BIG MAN" and POLITICAL POWER and I for one am sick of them! They capitalize on votes from the extreme religious ..... while doing SHIT for them .....pass their policies for the ULTRA RITCH and keep the corrupt in power (just look at Cheney)

You know... I like your input but damn.. Your lopsidedness is just too obvious to ignore.

[Phoenix]

All right Beelze, you may need to take a breather. I know they can do that easily, but just take a few minutes to catch your breath, mmkay?

[beelzebub]

All right Beelze, you may need to take a breather. I know they can do that easily, but just take a few minutes to catch your breath, mmkay?

????? What? I believe I am debating...

Look I am no Prom,... I may have passionate views but I am tempered with a good dose of capitalisim :-)

[Phoenix]

????? What? I believe I am debating...

Look I am no Prom,... I may have passionate views but I am tempered with a good dose of capitalisim :-)
Ah, okay, just making sure you weren't getting too overheated there lol

[freakazoid]

I'm on a Zo kick today... I guess.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3T0uhrzZTU&feature=channel

Limbo - big point here: TEMPORARY INJUNCTION. On to the Appeals Court and then on to the Supremes. :D

Damn that dude is righteous! Great vid!

[freedom]

PUT ALL YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THEM TAKING YOUR JOBS ASIDE... LETS THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT... THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND FARMING INDUSTRY HAS BEEN PAYING ABOUT THE SAME WAGES FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS IN MOST AREAS.. NOW YOU HAVE A MEXICAN CREW THAT COMES IN BUSTS THEIR ASS AND GETS THE JOB DONE FASTER THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CREW??? WHY IS THAT???? WELL THE AMERICAN DOLLAR IS WORTH TEN DOLLARS IN MEXICO! VIVA LA PAY RAISE WITHOUT THE COST!!! LOS MEXICANOS ARE GETTING PAID TEN AMERICAN DOLLARS AN HOUR WHICH IS WORTH 100.00 DOLLARS IN MEXICO... NO WONDER THEY COME HERE BUST THEIR ASS AND GO BACK HOME???? WOULDN'T YOU??? YOU BET YOUR ASS IF I MADE A HUNDRED DOLLARS AN HOUR FOR DOING DRYWALL I WOULD WORK LIKE A MANIAC! TRUTH IS THE ILLEGALS WORK CIRCLES AROUND US SINCE THEY ARE GETTING COMPENSATED TEN TIMES WHAT WE ARE!!! our work ethic would change in that environment as well!! truth is our employers are taking advantage of us but the illegals are taking advantage of our employers and making out like banditos!so how is the idiot in this scenario.... we are working for the company store as always... the mexicans are getting even with capitalist corporations and getting the fuck out and living great their homeland!!!! how can we look down on hard working people like us regardless of race creed or gender?? the real enemy is the greedy capitalists that employ us!


Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rec]

Move to China, be happy!

[hitekredneck]

PUT ALL YOUR PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT ILLEGAL ALIENS AND THEM TAKING YOUR JOBS ASIDE... LETS THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MOMENT... THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND FARMING INDUSTRY HAS BEEN PAYING ABOUT THE SAME WAGES FOR ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS IN MOST AREAS.. NOW YOU HAVE A MEXICAN CREW THAT COMES IN BUSTS THEIR ASS AND GETS THE JOB DONE FASTER THAN THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CREW??? WHY IS THAT???? WELL THE AMERICAN DOLLAR IS WORTH TEN DOLLARS IN MEXICO! VIVA LA PAY RAISE WITHOUT THE COST!!! LOS MEXICANOS ARE GETTING PAID TEN AMERICAN DOLLARS AN HOUR WHICH IS WORTH 100.00 DOLLARS IN MEXICO... NO WONDER THEY COME HERE BUST THEIR ASS AND GO BACK HOME???? WOULDN'T YOU??? YOU BET YOUR ASS IF I MADE A HUNDRED DOLLARS AN HOUR FOR DOING DRYWALL I WOULD WORK LIKE A MANIAC! TRUTH IS THE ILLEGALS WORK CIRCLES AROUND US SINCE THEY ARE GETTING COMPENSATED TEN TIMES WHAT WE ARE!!! our work ethic would change in that environment as well!! truth is our employers are taking advantage of us but the illegals are taking advantage of our employers and making out like banditos!so how is the idiot in this scenario.... we are working for the company store as always... the mexicans are getting even with capitalist corporations and getting the fuck out and living great their homeland!!!! how can we look down on hard working people like us regardless of race creed or gender?? the real enemy is the greedy capitalists that employ us!


Freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you blithering idiot, the problem isn't with the capitalists, the laws, the lack of enforcement, nor even the employers that hire mexicans....after much thought, i've realized that the biggest problem for mexicans is their failure to take control of their country...to clean up the corruption in their government, to demand the basic rights that we enjoy in this country, and to attend to their own personal safety....why do mexicans come here in droves? because their government is so fucked they can't even defend themselves from the drug cartels...until mexicans come to the basic realization that they are the ones controlling their destiny, things will continue as they are

[Rec]

you blithering idiot, the problem isn't with the capitalists, the laws, the lack of enforcement, nor even the employers that hire mexicans....after much thought, i've realized that the biggest problem for mexicans is their failure to take control of their country...to clean up the corruption in their government, to demand the basic rights that we enjoy in this country, and to attend to their own personal safety....why do mexicans come here in droves? because their government is so fucked they can't even defend themselves from the drug cartels...until mexicans come to the basic realization that they are the ones controlling their destiny, things will continue as they are


Freedom is just excersing his "freedom" to rant with all the problems and no solid answers! Using his fingers to challenge others to use their brains! Sounds like a newbie Marxist! lol

[Patt]

Ole Harry's up to it again. He's added the Dream Act (immigration bill allowing those that came here illegally at under the age of 16 and have been here for 5 years to become citizens without question if they join the military or go to college) to the Department of Defense appropriations bill to try and sneak it through. Also included in there is the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.

Damned Democrats - why can't they just deal with issues straight up instead of trying to sneak stuff through?

[hitekredneck]

this guy freedom makes me wonder if ol prometheus got tired of havin his liver pecked out....

[LedZap]

Ole Harry's up to it again. He's added the Dream Act (immigration bill allowing those that came here illegally at under the age of 16 and have been here for 5 years to become citizens without question if they join the military or go to college) to the Department of Defense appropriations bill to try and sneak it through. Also included in there is the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.

Damned Democrats - why can't they just deal with issues straight up instead of trying to sneak stuff through?

They need 60 votes.If we filibuster , they'll use it against us.

[Limbo]

I'm in favor of the DREAM act, but I think it's provisions should be stricter, lower the age of arrival , and increase the number of years in the country. 16 is way too high. Only children who were brought here very young and have lived all their lives here should qualify.

Having said that, I don't agree with attaching it to another bill in a sneaky way.

[LedZap]

Especially a defense spending bill.

[yee-haw]

Here's the answer to illegals:
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/6757/mk48mod0z.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/mk48mod0z.jpg/)

Arm our border patrol with MK 48 mod 0 LMG assult rifle

[Patt]

I want the American version of the Great Wall of China --- complete with automatic gun turrets, virtually run, every 100 or so yards. Video Game Geeks would wet themselves!! A wall wide enough to drive between stations - set back at least 100 feet inside our border.

Touch the wall - die. Leave the bodies lay where they are as a deterrent to those who would try to 'touch' the wall. They'd only do it once. :D

Nice Arches with Iron gates for entry passage - upon strict scrutiny of their background, their paperwork, and where the hell they plan to go and what the hell they plan on doing. GPS tracking isn't out of the question either if we're talking green card issues.

Yeah - It's harsh - but I'm fed the fuff up with border issues. Does it show?

[LedZap]

The GPS issue should be no problem. Obama wants to do that to all Americans...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10GwocAiu

Oh wait , they're Mexicans ? Nope Obama wouldn't go for that.

[Patt]

The GPS issue should be no problem. Obama wants to do that to all Americans...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10GwocAiu

Oh wait , they're Mexicans ? Nope Obama wouldn't go for that.



The circuit’s ruling means that, in the District of Columbia area, the authorities need a warrant to install a GPS-tracking device on a vehicle. But in much of the United States, including the West, a warrant is not required. Unless the circuit changes it mind, only the Supreme Court can mandate a uniform rule.Pretty damned convenient that politicians can't be tracked while in DC but they can be at home, huh?

Here's another Amendment Obama's DoJ tries to circumvent - The Fourth !!





(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10IansG3u)

[yee-haw]

Pretty damned convenient that politicians can't be tracked while in DC but they can be at home, huh?



(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/public-privacy/#ixzz10IansG3u)


That's why i trust the information you offer!

[Patt]

That's why i trust the information you offer!

What you talking about, Willis?

[yee-haw]

What you talking about, Willis?

Well put it like this, The left wing lunatics are very, Very afraid of you Ms. Patt!
They hate truth...kinda like kryptonite to em'.

[Patt]

Well put it like this, The left wing lunatics are very, Very afraid of you Ms. Patt!
They hate truth...kinda like kryptonite to em'.

And I'm really lubable too - LOL - they're missing out. Sadness. But, really, NOT much. :D

[Rec]

NOT, they could only give a hug on the left side and not a complete one!! ewwwww visual upsetting!!HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[LedZap]

There's always this ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xsXbR1QEGZI/TJlV7UjO9vI/AAAAAAAAGtI/gRRnkbvOS3E/s400/beeryolo.jpg

Think he's bitter now ? Wait for a couple of months.

[yee-haw]

There's always this ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xsXbR1QEGZI/TJlV7UjO9vI/AAAAAAAAGtI/gRRnkbvOS3E/s400/beeryolo.jpg

Think he's bitter now ? Wait for a couple of months.

I approve of this post!