Judge puts brakes on 1070
 

Judge puts brakes on action in Arizona immigration case

The future of Arizona's controversial Senate Bill 1070 will remain in limbo until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issues a ruling, a federal court judge decided Friday.

And there's no telling when that will be.

The appeals court heard arguments on Nov. 1 regarding U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton's decision to halt most of the key provisions of SB 1070, which was signed into law last April, from going into effect.

Bolton said Friday that she had been waiting to move forward with the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the law's constitutionality until there was a ruling on her injunction. It's now been five months, she said.

"I had anticipated that we would have had a decision. I was betting for February and now March has come and gone," Bolton said, saying she gets no advance notice on when a ruling may come and that it could happen tomorrow or in a year.

Bolton said she was reluctant to continue to wait, but she and attorneys representing the federal government on one side and the state and Gov. Jan Brewer on the other agreed that they couldn't move forward with the underlying case until they had an appeals court decision.

Bolton said once an appeals court ruling does come down, the two sides will have 30 days to let her know whether they will appeal again, which could go as high as the U.S. Supreme Court.

But there are some things that will happen while they continue to wait.

Bolton said they will move forward with a countersuit Brewer filed in February alleging that the federal government has failed to secure the border.

Varu Chilakamarri with the U.S. Department of Justice said they will file a motion to dismiss the countersuit within the next couple of weeks.

Bolton also will make a decision on a request by Senate President Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, to join the lawsuit as a defendant. She had initially denied Pearce's request, but the Legislature passed a measure earlier this year authorizing Pearce and Speaker of the House Kirk Adams to intervene on behalf of the Legislature.

Brewer supports Pearce's request; the U.S. Department of Justice opposes it. Friday, Bolton heard arguments from all the involved parties.

Pearce said he needs a seat at the table because he can best explain the intent of the Legislature in writing and passing SB 1070.

"I think we would enhance the debate," he said. "This impacts the entire nation, and we need to be at the table."

Attorney Paul Orfanedes with the conservative nonprofit Judicial Watch is representing Pearce at no cost to the state.

He admitted to Bolton that it is unprecedented for a Legislature to ask to join a lawsuit in which state or gubernatorial attorneys are already defending a state law. But he said passing a law saying that the state wants the Legislature to be represented in such a case also has never happened.

"This is the Legislature's baby. It knows this very controversial legislation better than anybody else," he said.

Chilakamarri said it would be unwarranted and unprecedented for Bolton to allow Pearce to intervene just because the state passed a law saying he could.

Bolton said she would rule on the matter later, but gave the impression that she may deny Pearce's request. She said she was concerned that adding another party to the case would mean more lawyers, more documents filed and more time.

"You are really not offering me anything that says the interests of the state Legislature are not being adequately represented," she told Orfanedes.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/electi...ing-limbo.html

Deplorable
 

What a sad day for America.

I wrote to Judge John Roll last year and told him that Susan Bolton was not eligible to hear this case. The DOJ is an abomination more corrupt than some banana republic.

Explosive new evidence shows ruling of AZ judge illegal
July 31st, 2010 12:07 pm ET . Anthony Martin Conservative Examiner.FollowSubscribeSponsor an Examiner ...
.View all of Anthony's articlesPrintEmailShare on FacebookShare on Twitter208 comments.

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

(Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images). The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.
Advertisement

It seems that the DOJ suing Arizona is not an isolated case concerning the states. Furthermore, it seems the DOJ is sticking its nose into a lot oc cases which could be handled by a local prosecutor, or otherwise taken through the local court system.




And the flip side to the Arizona lawsuit pursued during King Georges' reign:

If so, and not subject to further interpretation in court cases brought before the supreme court, it seems there is quite a bit of ignoring the constitution through at least two administrations.

The 11th amendment has some bearing on Art. III, but my eyes got to glazing over - I believe that it gave states immunity from being sued, but further decisions allowed individual state office holders to be sued.

The 11th amendment came about in response to a previous abuse by the Supreme Court of the time.