Thread: Federal judge to hear arguments July 22 to stop SB 1070

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by marquis

Everyone should chill , so far so good. People have been blowing their hot air at us but that's about it.

I want to wait and see how She rules before freaking out.

You got that right.

Yup I agree too.She will decide at this hearing whether or not to throw out this case and I am willing to give her the benifit of the doubt until she rules.

You know the AZ law should have read: we will check the citizenship of EVERYONE we stop or investigate,In fact,Police already do that since they always check our ID documents if we are questioned or suspected of breaking any law.

Originally Posted by FedUpinFarmersBranch

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will consider a request by three civil rights groups to place the law on hold while the issue of its legality is litigated. They argue that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy.

You know this won't be a fair hearing. Wonder how many strings the Obama administration pulled to having this biased judge hear this case?

Originally Posted by bigtex

Originally Posted by FedUpinFarmersBranch

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will consider a request by three civil rights groups to place the law on hold while the issue of its legality is litigated. They argue that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy.

You know this won't be a fair hearing. Wonder how many strings the Obama administration pulled to having this biased judge hear this case?

What do you expect her to do , skip the trial and just make a ruling ? I think it's a good sign that she now controls ALL the appeals against it. If she only had one appeal but ruled for it , the law could still have been stopped by another judge ruling against it with a different appeal. With the trial
So
Close to the start date if she throws all the cases out they other side won't have enough time to do anything to stop it going into effect , and once it does go into effect , game over for illeGls

Originally Posted by bigtex

Originally Posted by FedUpinFarmersBranch

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will consider a request by three civil rights groups to place the law on hold while the issue of its legality is litigated. They argue that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy.

You know this won't be a fair hearing. Wonder how many strings the Obama administration pulled to having this biased judge hear this case?

I wonder how governor Brewer will react if this judge rules the law unconstitutional. Will she say basically, too bad what the federal govt thinks and assert 10th amendment rights or will she buckle to an adverse decision.

Anyway, the governor's lawyers said, the individuals who are being represented by the three groups - the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund - have no right to sue because they cannot show personal harm from the law.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Originally Posted by marquis

Originally Posted by bigtex

Originally Posted by FedUpinFarmersBranch

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton will consider a request by three civil rights groups to place the law on hold while the issue of its legality is litigated. They argue that the law unconstitutionally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy.

You know this won't be a fair hearing. Wonder how many strings the Obama administration pulled to having this biased judge hear this case?

What do you expect her to do , skip the trial and just make a ruling ? I think it's a good sign that she now controls ALL the appeals against it. If she only had one appeal but ruled for it , the law could still have been stopped by another judge ruling against it with a different appeal. With the trial
So
Close to the start date if she throws all the cases out they other side won't have enough time to do anything to stop it going into effect , and once it does go into effect , game over for illeGls

Why, yes, Marquis, that's EXACTLY what I would have expected her to do - skip the trial. As I said before, this case should never have been given the light of day by the District Court because the Mexican government lacks standing to sue. Consider:

Standing to Sue
The "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the Constitution imposes a minimal constitutional standing requirement on all litigants attempting to bring suit in federal court. In order to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate, at an "irreducible minimum," that: (1) he/she has suffered a distinct and palpable injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) it is likely to be redressed if the requested relief is granted. See Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99 (1979); Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26, 37 (1976). In addition to the constitutional requirements of Article III, courts have developed a set of prudential considerations to limit standing in federal court to prevent a plaintiff "from adjudicating 'abstract questions of wide public significance' which amount to 'generalized grievances' pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative branches." See Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 474-75, quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499-500 (1975). Speculative claims that a proposed governmental action may result in injury to a plaintiff are insufficient to confer standing. See O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 497 (1974). The required injury must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. See Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 109-10 (1969).

[cited in USAM 4-2.130]

In short, there is no case for her to hear. Anything she attempts to do will either be (a) grandstanding for her own gain or (b) further prostitution of our Constitution by an illegal and corrupt administration. With no forum for this lawsuit to be heard, the AZ law would pass uncontested and go into effect as scheduled. As you said, game over for illegals.

Now that she's consented to hearing the case, she will probably grant a stay while arguments are being prepared for the hearing, effectively cutting off the AZ law before it can be enacted. That temporary stay would then open the door for years of litigation before she decides the case.

AZ needs to save some time here and begin the process to impeach right away.

Your reply seems to demonstrate a short-sightedness that is rampant throughout the US today. She has already displayed a contempt for the Constitution and you want to wait and see how she decides a case that she shouldn't have allowed into the court in the first place? This isn't blowing hot air or freaking out - it's common sense. You don't wait and see what happens after the fox enters the hen house - you take the appropriate measures to prevent the fox from entering in the first place.[/quote]

Yes I agree with Frank. If it is true that the SB1070 mirrors Federal Law then there should be no court case over it. So either it does not mirror federal law or I have to believe the worst of the conspiracy theories about the enemy within. Well let's just say the latter is quite evident all around. I honestly think that this sham show trial is going forward because of the belief that a large portion of the population will accept a court decision and back down. It's kind of like math and surveys and studies comparing apples to oranges are often used to sway people because they know lots of us can't do the math. So they should also publish exactly how they came to those conclusions so we can do their funky math for ourselves and see what we think. But maybe we aren't so stupid anymore and we know that justice is purchased by whoever has the most money, just like our supposedly independent media is also for sale and can no longer be counted on to publish the unbiased unvarnished truth. Sham justice will not fool us.

RELATED

Unknown when judge will rule on immigration law

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1086457.html

RELATED

Michigan is the lead state backing Arizona in federal court. Michigan is joined by Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands.

Brief for 9 states backs Arizona immigration law

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1089314.html#1089314

Thur. is the big day. But don't expect a ruling tomorrow.
The judge may take days, weeks or even months to make a ruling. But anything could happen.