Thread: Judge lets Mexico have voice in suit on AZ. immigration law

From what I understand the date set to hear arguements as to whether and injunction or stay against the law taking effect is set for July 22nd.

I haven't heard anything on a July 15th date so I don't know what that hearing would be about.

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.

If anybody has more details on a July 15th hearing please post it here as I am only aware of the July 22nd hearing.

PatriotAZGUY, I wonder if she can be "in the middle and some right" when she already has allowed maxico (which has NO legal standing) to butt into sovereign state law. Could you please explain??

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Judge lets Mexico have voice in suit on Ariz. immigration law

Mexico says it wants to defend its citizens' rights...

That's an excellent argument for not granting American citizenship to anchor babies. We certainly don't want to offend the rich in Mexico who are dumping their poor on us

RELATED

Federal judge to hear arguments July 22 to stop SB 107O

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-204682.html

Anyone find out who this federal judge is? He needs to be tossed off the bench.

Originally Posted by jamesw62

americans should have a right to petition the court to disregard the mexican government interference into US laws and US individual state laws.

Shame on that judge. maybe her office needs phone calls to remind her that foreign governments have no say so in our laws

I'M HAVING TROUBLE WRAPPING MY MIND AROUND THIS. THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS HAVING A SAY IN THIS MATTER. IF THEY ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR ILLEGAL CITIZENS HERE IN THE U.S., THEN MAKE THEM COME HOME TO MY KNOWLEDGE THEY WERE NOT INVITED HERE AND NO ONE SENT FOR THEM TO COME HERE. I'LL BET IF IT WERE ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT MEXICO WAS MEDDLING IN THEIR BUSINESS, THEY WOULD PUT THEM IN THEIR PLACE, BUT NOT THIS COUNTRY. THEY JUST LET MEXICO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

Originally Posted by keekee

PatriotAZGUY, I wonder if she can be "in the middle and some right" when she already has allowed maxico (which has NO legal standing) to butt into sovereign state law. Could you please explain??

Keekee-You have to look at her ruling record overtime to get a better sense on how she responds to issues regarding illegal aliens. It is no suprise that she is allowing Mexico to be a party to this issue and listening to what they have to say. That is the politics part of it and I am sure she was told to do so by her boss. Yes, even Federal Judges have a boss, that is how the case even got assigned to her. My point is we can all agree that Mexico shouldn't have a say in our politics but the facts are we know that their is going to be some influence by our own government to allow it. What we have to hope for is that she is able to make a ruling independent of any influence from the Justice Department and rule based on the facts of the law. I don't see her as somebody who will make a ruling on this that is so way out there in left field that it is obvious she was influenced to side with the pro-illegal crowd.

I see her making a ruling based on testimony that is supported strictly on her interpretation of the constitution and precedence that have already been established either by supreme court rulings or other district courts. In the end, it will be up to the supreme court to decide this issue as we all know it will go the distance no matter what side prevails, the other will appeal.

The plaintiffs in this action will have to show cause in this injunction hearing that is significant enough to convince the Judge that when this case goes to trial that the likelyhood of the plantiffs prevailing is very strong in order for them to show that for that reason an injuction is warranted. I personally don't believe the Plantiffs will be able to show that and so I don't believe an injuction stopping this law from being enforced will be issued by her. I believe she will deny the injuction request and let the trial determine whether it is a legal law or not.

Originally Posted by Dixie

Related:


The presiding judge is Susan Bolton a Bill Clinton appointment and they always rule against immigration enforcement.

Dixie

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton on July 21, 2000 to a seat vacated by Robert Broomfield. Bolton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 3, 2000 on the unanimous consent of the Senate and received commission on October 13, 2000.

Well what do you know, John Kyle recommended this idiot.

Looks like this is Bolton's office number:602-322-7570

Perhaps Kyle deserves a few email as well. He recommended her.

Hey, here is a Court Website where you can judge This idiot judge's performance and then take a survey to rate her. You can make comments too.

http://www.courthouseforum.com/forums/e ... ntrial.php

Originally Posted by bigtex

Anyone find out who this federal judge is? He needs to be tossed off the bench.

The comments above say it is a female judge, name address, phone number listed above.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Originally Posted by Dixie

Related:


The presiding judge is Susan Bolton a Bill Clinton appointment and they always rule against immigration enforcement.

Dixie

On the recommendation of U.S. Senator Jon Kyl, Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton on July 21, 2000 to a seat vacated by Robert Broomfield. Bolton was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 3, 2000 on the unanimous consent of the Senate and received commission on October 13, 2000.


Well what do you know, John Kyle recommended this idiot.

It is common in all the States that the Senator for that state nominates for the vacant didtrict judge seats. Usually it is the senator who has the same party affiliation as the President. In this case, the President was a democrat but Arizona had no democrat senators at the time so a republican senator John Kyle made the nomination. Clinton had no choice but to accept it as the vacant seat had to be filled.