Federal Judge Rips Pres. Obama's Lawsuit Against Arizona

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?"

At issue in Thursday's hearing, argued in a tan-colored "special proceedings" courtroom" inside the federal courthouse, was whether Bolton would grant a preliminary injunction to stop the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.

As dozens of protesters marched outside, the hearing marked the first round in the Obama administration's effort to stop the state's crackdown on illegal immigration. The tension in the courtroom reflected a broader national debate over what has become a political divisive issue: whether police should have the power to question people they suspect are in the United States illegally.

For the rest of the story>http://www.thefoxnation.com/arizona-immigration-law/2010/07/23/federal-judge-rips-pres-obamas-lawsuit-against-arizona

According to Obummer, Pestosi and Holer, it's unconstitutional to enforce Federal Law.

If that be the case, States shouldn't be arresting Federal criminals such as, Bank robbers, child molesters, kidnappers or murderers.

If this is the legal interpretation of the bill

'Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"


I doubt anyone would object. But I dont recall the bill requiring an arrest for crime to precede the status check.

Have you ever actually read the bill from beginning to end?

Just curious.

yes, I did.

I just don't understand what the problem is.

The MAJORITY of AMERICANS want OUR country back.

Where's the problem? I thought we went by what the people wanted.

If illegals don't like it, GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

And don't expect us to assimilate to your country's way of life

After all you ARE in a different country and DON'T threaten OUR citizens lives and expect us to let it go.

What would happen to me if I was an illegal in another country and I acted that way. I would be KILLED.

But hey, it's OK for ALL others to come here and act like animals.

The problem is not with the motivation, it is with the approach. Let me give an example,,,

Maybe I have six daughters. I am concerned with the teen pregnancy epidemic and I want to try to ensure my teens dont come up pregnant. Nothing wrong there. (lets forego the obvious answer of birth control)

So every day they come in, four of my six daughters go on about their business, but the other two(for whatever reason) I give twenty questions to about where they have been and what they have been doing and I demand that they hand over their clothes so I Can inspect them and one day one had no panties on so I take her to the clinic immediately because she cant provide evidence that she was wearing any that day.

Now, I may have GREAT intentions(trying to prevent teen pregnancy), but the approach I am using to SINGLE out these two young ladies and treat the one as if she is guilty until proven innocent, would be unfair and cause a rift in my family between those presumed innocent and those presumed guilty ,,,which could do much more harm than the good I am purporting to be interested in.

As I said, if, like a drivers license for driving a car,, EVERYONE is mandated to have Identification at all times, that would be more just than just cherry picking certain individuals to chastise at will.

You didn't answer my questions.

I didnt see any question except,,,

'Where's the problem?' That is the question I addressed.

the other points were valid,,

CRIMINALS (illegal immigration is criminal) should have the rules and consequences applied equally (wherever they are from and whatever they look like)

Those wishing to live in America should learn the dominant language and learn to flourish in the culture,, just as AMericans would have to do if wanting to live in France or Italy, or any other country.

Americans do want their country back, but they just have different opinions about what can and cant be done, and what should or shouldnt be done to accomplish that because most of them are hyped up on emotion without considering LOGIC and REASON.

Ya know, if we wanted to, we could make ANY law all about profiling. Nowhere in SB 1070 does it say ANYTHING about race. (You should know this, as YOU read the bill).

If I (as a white male) were to be driving through a black neighborhood, I WOULD/have been stopped, searched and questioned. It was interesting trying to explain to the police that I was delivering PIZZA.

Is that an example of racial profiling? YES


But that's OK because I'm white. It DOES happen to ALL of us

the first point here is that blatant racism as policy is still frowned upon in this country, many rules and policies leave room for blatant racism though even when race is not specifically mentioned,, for example , the sign 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason' is much less blatant than the signs 'blacks only' or 'whites only' but can and has been used to the same end,,,

the second point is if you were stopped for driving through a black neighborhood,,that would be an interesting debate,,but is that how the officer explained it?

were there black drivers stopped as well? was there a problem with drug sells in this neighborhood?..if so they could have been stopping suspicious vehicles and not just certain races,,,,,those would be interesting answers to have and would possibly justify the stop beyond just your race,,,


let me give another example, coming back from a comedy show in a chrysler LHS when they first came out, all dressed in our best clothes, my family and I were pulled off the expressway,,,what reason did the officer give,,? did he say it was because we were black?,,no, racism is rarely as blatant as that because BLATANT racism is illegal as a policy

the reason was because,, (wait for it),, the officer saw us TALKING(to each other, not on a cell phone) before changing lanes to exit AND we slowed our speed a whole three miles per hour,,,,,,

now, I shouldnt assume, but THOSE are pretty bogus reasons and I would bet that there were no white drivers pulled over for that reason on that stretch of road,,,


in any case, because something HAPPENS still does not make it right or something we should ignore or shoot for...

Yes, I was stopped for being in a black neighborhood. The cop told me that he wanted to know why a "white boy" was in a black neighborhood and what I was doing there. He then called for back up and they searched my car for drugs, they found nothing but a couple insulated pizza carriers. They then told me that they didn't want to see me in that area again. They didn't/won't harass black drivers in that area. "That would be racial profiling".

But again, I'm white so it's OK.

We ALL know that whites no NOTHING about racial profiling.

seems as if you encountered a racist cop then, and should have reported him if that was all there was to it. Its probably not true that in a black neighborhood where drugs is apparently an issue that they would not be also stopping black drivers.

But in a free country, your race has nothing to do with where you can travel legally and this cop should have been reported for harassment, just like he should have been if he had made such a statement to a black man in a prominent white community. Unfortunately, few people question the motives of cops and the 'justice system' almost always sides with the cop leaving most to feel like complaining is a waste of time.


also, I never stated that whites have no experience with profiling, my point was just that profiling should not be permitted on mere grounds of race or ethnicity.

as a sidenote, I visualize the implementation of such a bill will be racist. I know how sucky it feels to be asked to empty your purse even when you have done anything or taken anything because of someones (racially charged) 'suspicion', ,,I dont want that type of 'criminal suspect' treatment for any person in America which hasnt broken any laws.

Ok I am so tired of hearing the "racial profiling" card. Does racial discrimination and profiling occur. Not only yeah but H*** yeah! The fact of the matter is:

ANY law or bill, past or present can be interpreted to be a type of profiling. Or turn to profiling after its been in place for a while. We cannot predict the future. Nobody is immune. We cannot avoid passing laws and bills because of the "possibility" of misuse. Its an unreasonable position.

Just for example.

If I were to be in Mexico, I would be subject to the SAME laws that WE are trying to enforce here in america. That IS racial profiling.


Weather you admit it or not, racial profiling IS a fact of life for ALL races, in all countrys.

We DO agree that it IS WRONG, but it is a FACT of life.

I agree with this,, we need to wait to see how the law is implemented before acting to change it or sustain it.

and I would NEVER live in certain parts of Mexico because of such corruption and abuse,,


I agree it is wrong and it is a fact of life, but it is still something people should not support or ignore
anymore than other 'facts of life' like theft, or murder, or war,,etc,,, and the laws should certainly not support or give validity to such 'facts of life'

It just seems like to me you're trying so hard to find something to disagree with MSharmony on when in fact you both are on the same page.