« As She Smiled and Offered a Hand In Friendship a Muslim Woman Stabbed MP Twice in the Stomach Over Iraq War | Main | End of the Pelosi Era of Irresponsibility »
November 02, 2010
Judge Questions Justice Department's Lawsuit Against Arizona Immigration Law
Judge questions Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona immigration law
A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."
"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.''
The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law's most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.
With Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, so bluntly stating his views, legal experts said the government's chances of having the injunction upheld may rest with the other two judges on Monday's panel: Carlos T. Bea and Richard A. Paez.
Bea is also a Republican appointee and tends to vote with the court's conservative wing, which could help Arizona's chances. Paez is a Democratic appointee.
But Bea and Paez are Hispanic, and it is Hispanics who are most upset about the Arizona law. "Perhaps this is one area where Bea might not vote as a so-called conservative because he himself is an immigrant,'' said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and an expert on the 9th Circuit.
Bea did not make his position clear during Monday's argument, but he sharply questioned Arizona's attorneys. "Your argument that a state can take a look at whether the federal government is not enforcing its laws. . . . You can enforce laws for the federal government?" he asked. "If I don't pay my (federal) income taxes, can California sue me?''
Whatever the result, the panel's decision is the first step on a long road: legal experts expect the case to reach the Supreme Court. It is unclear when the panel will rule.
Wild Thing's comment........
"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler.
And that's the POLITE way of putting it.
This whole lawsuit business against Arizona was a political move to gin up latino support for Obama and the dems. As a legal case, all I can say is OBAMA/HOLDER FAIL.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at November 2, 2010 02:47 AM
Comments
Federal gov't is trying to block a state from enforcing a federal law... I suppose DoJ won't let states arrest people for counterfeiting or bank robbery either (hey, fair's fair, you know).
Posted by: Anonymous at November 2, 2010 01:41 PM
This is unheard of. A couple of Presidents have deported Illegals because they were taking jobs from Americans.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document (that limits the rights of man-but a document that limits the power of government over man. This is what obama don't understand or maybe he does too well.
Posted by: Mark at November 2, 2010 05:51 PM
