Thread: Immigration law briefs limited by judge

Immigration law briefs limited by judge

Jul. 3, 2010 02:25 PM
Associated Press

A judge considering the five lawsuits challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law is trying to avoid being buried by legal paperwork.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups that aren't plaintiffs or defendants in the case.

Bolton's order lifts a requirement for the state to respond to all briefs and imposes size limits on new briefs being filed.

She says the many briefs being filed in the case (in her words) "may well jeopardize the court's ability to rule" by July 29 on a request to prohibit the law from taking effect that date.

But Bolton also says there's an interest in having the court hear views of interested parties that file briefs of reasonable length.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ng-ON.html

judge you can start by dismissing anything related to mexico and the mexican government in this case. that is a sovereign country that has no business being involved in this lawsuit

Guess the Liberal judge, has received the Liberal illegal hugging briefs so she doesn't want to hear from the other side. Nice move, bet she's done this before.

Dixie

Originally Posted by Dixie

Guess the Liberal judge, has received the Liberal illegal hugging briefs so she doesn't want to hear from the other side. Nice move, bet she's done this before.

Dixie

Maybe we shouldn't be to critical of her until we find out which way she rules.
It would be a shame to be critical of her and the find out she rules in our favor.
We can only hope for now.

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by Dixie

Guess the Liberal judge, has received the Liberal illegal hugging briefs so she doesn't want to hear from the other side. Nice move, bet she's done this before.

Dixie

Maybe we shouldn't be to critical of her until we find out which way she rules.
It would be a shame to be critical of her and the find out she rules in our favor.
We can only hope for now.

Shame? How about mathematical probability, history, track records...

I expect Susan Bolton to rule like all the other Bill Clinton appointed judges have on immigration legislation, therefore, she will rule against the Arizona bills. She's a Liberal Democrat Sheep who has a Liberal Interpretation of the Constitution. I've only read about one case, in which a Clinton judge ruled in our favor and I nearly fell out of my chair when I read it.

First thing she will do is block them from going into effect with an injunction.

If she rules in our favor, then it will be because of divine intervention. I've already done my praying about this.

Dixie

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Originally Posted by Dixie

Guess the Liberal judge, has received the Liberal illegal hugging briefs so she doesn't want to hear from the other side. Nice move, bet she's done this before.

Dixie

Maybe we shouldn't be to critical of her until we find out which way she rules.
It would be a shame to be critical of her and the find out she rules in our favor.
We can only hope for now.

But for this judge to even consider Mexico's input tells me that she will probably rule for the pro-illegals.

This info was posted as a cmment on another article:

PatriotAZGUY

As far as Judge Susan Bolton is concerned from what I have read up on her it seems she is a good Judge and would be fair in her ruling. This issue of course could have outside influence on her, hard to say.

She was an appointee to the bench in 2003 by Bill Clinton but that was because their were no Democrat Senators in Arizona at the time so she was nominated by Republican Senator John Kyle. Clinton had to fill three seats in Arizona that year so he had no choice but to accept the nomination. I think that goes in our favor as politically she seems to be in the middle and some right when it comes to immigration issues.

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-204672.html

Just because Mexico filed a brief doesn't mean it will have any influence on the judge's decision.

i think many of you haven't done your home work on the judge , she's been sentacing people for a LONG time now .... which means shes had ALOT of face time with the illegal immigration problem in her own court room ....

Quote:
"Bolton's order lifts a requirement for the state to respond to all briefs and imposes size limits on new briefs being filed."

I believe this works in favor of Arizona and its legal resident taxpayers. Because this is being tried as a "possible violation of civil rights" case rather than simply on its merits as immigration law, plaintiffs like the ACLU, MADELF, etc., will incur NO court costs if the judge rules against Arizona. The state would then bear the burden of ALL the court costs of both plaintiffs and their own defense. By lifting the requirement for the state to respond to all briefs and limiting the size of new ones, the ruling also limits the time (and, thus, money) Arizona's legal staff must spend on this process. Even Terry Goddard, Arizona's Democratic Attorney General who refused to defend the case for Gov. Brewer, has stated that he thinks SB 1070 will prevail in court, and just because the judge is a Clinton appointee does not mean that she is not a fair judge. Even the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld one of Arizona's previous anti-illegal immigration laws. There is no reason not to remain positive in this.