fed judge stops arizona immigration law

Well, not quite "stops."

She, a Clinton appointee, punted.

The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution.

Within each division, the civil cases, when filed, shall be assigned among the Judges of the division by the Clerk (or by a deputy designated
by the Clerk) by automated random selection and in a manner so that neither the Clerk nor any parties or their attorneys shall be able to make a deliberate choice of a particular Judge for a particular case.

I found this:

"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," Bolton said in her decision.

I don't see that this is a legal argument. What law doe this violate?

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution.

Why don't you read the ruling?

I should. Do you by any chance have a link?

Yeah, like that's gonna help you, Brandon.

Irrelevant as usual.

Okay, it's tantamount to impossible for an ordinary person to read this. Maybe if I had all day.

The federal government asked her to issue an injunction, and that's what she did.

That's the part that puzzles me, Joe. I thought that courts didn't make theoretical rulings -- maybe this isn't one -- I thought that there had to be a law and a real plaintiff, someone who has been hurt by said law and then a challenge can be mounted.

JTT wrote:

That's the part that puzzles me, Joe. I thought that courts didn't make theoretical rulings -- maybe this isn't one -- I thought that there had to be a law and a real plaintiff, someone who has been hurt by said law and then a challenge can be mounted.

When a state usurps powers that exclusively belong to the federal government, that hurts the federal government, and the public interests it exists to assert.

Just because someone doesn‘t love you the way you want them to,
doesn‘t mean they don‘t love you with all they have.　

You make the stupidest remarks concerning how your own country's system operates, repeating silly memes that you've heard or read from various right wing nut cases, then proceed to clearly illustrate just how dumb you are and you don't find this pertinent to the discussion at hand.

You must have slept thru your whole grade six civics class.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution.

The US District Court of Arizona, like pretty much all federal courts, assigns cases to judges by a random process. According to local rule 3.8(a):

Quote:

Within each division, the civil cases, when filed, shall be assigned among the Judges of the division by the Clerk (or by a deputy designated
by the Clerk) by automated random selection and in a manner so that neither the Clerk nor any parties or their attorneys shall be able to make a deliberate choice of a particular Judge for a particular case.

The court has 13 active judges -- six appointed by Clinton, seven appointed by the Bushes. There was, therefore, close to a 50% chance that the feds would draw a Clinton-appointee when they filed their case. But then the feds couldn't have filed it anywhere else, so it was just the luck of the draw that they got the judge that they got.

By the way, it took me about ten minutes to find all of that information on the web. Of course, making irresponsible and inaccurate insinuations takes even less time than that, and I appreciate that some people are in a hurry.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I found this:

"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," Bolton said in her decision.

I don't see that this is a legal argument. What law doe this violate?

It doesn't violate a law. It violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The liberals are doing what they always do - finding a liberal judge to nullify a popular vote of the people, based on fictitious interpretation of the Constitution.

How is it a ficticious interpretation of the Constitution that the power to regulate immigration, and to enforce those regulations, belongs exclusively to the federal government? This principle is firmly anchored in the constitution's migration or importation clause, its naturalization clause, and its commerce clause. Even Scalia and Thomas, the originalist judges, would uphold it.

JTT wrote:

That's the part that puzzles me, Joe. I thought that courts didn't make theoretical rulings -- maybe this isn't one -- I thought that there had to be a law and a real plaintiff, someone who has been hurt by said law and then a challenge can be mounted.

When a state usurps powers that exclusively belong to the federal government, that hurts the federal government, and the public interests it exists to assert.

I never said that they could influence which judge they draw.

I assume that if you had understood the judge's legal basis for the ruling you would have said something about it rather than commenting solely about my post.

Pick one clause, quote it here, and let's see.