« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Confirmed: US to sue Arizona over SB1070.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  June 19th, 2010 at 03:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Via Hot Air, este reportaje que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos va a llevar a las cortes el estado de Arizona sobre la Ley SB1070 de imigrantes ilegales. Aparentemente la Casa Blanca decidió primero divulgar esta noticia a los ecuatorianos, como parte de la visita de la Secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton a Ecuador; por lo tanto es adecuado reportarlo en español. Depués de todo, no es como si la administración de Obama tenga antecedente ninguno de hablar claro en inglés*.

Thanks to Fausta for the translation: also check out her conversation with IBD’s Monica Showalter on Hillary Clinton being friendly with Ecuadorean President Correa in the first place.  That the American electorate rejects the idea of a federal challenge to the law by a two-to-one ratio is irrelevant to this administration, of course; given their tendency to mistake a tin ear for principles, that’s hardly surprising.  If Rasmussen put out a poll demonstrating that most Republicans and independents oppose the practice of people hitting each other in the groin, it’s highly likely that the White House would react by endorsing it for the 2010 midterms…

Moe Lane

*Since people will complain:

Via Hot Air comes this report that the United States government will be suing the State of Arizona over its illegal-immigration law SB1070.  The White House apparently chose to first break this news to the people of Ecuador, as part of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to that country; in light of this, it seems appropriate to report on this in Spanish.  After all, it’s not like the Obama administration has any particular history of straight talk in English.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • houstoneagle

    before they reach the point of no return in ill will.

    In 136 days, the Republicans will take control of both houses of Congress.

    In 137 days, Obama begins the lame duck portion of his administration.

    In 138 days, Hillary announces her resignation as Secretary of State.

    In 139 days, Hillary announces the formation of an exploratory committee.

    Benishek for Speaker!*

    *OK Mike Pence is fine too. We’ll settle for Boehner–he’s aw-ite.

  • izoneguy

    http://www.borderinvasionpics.com/

  • throwback59

    lawsuit in a foreign land. When you are a “Citizen of the World” that would be perfectly appropriate. As an American Citizen, however, I am deeply insulted.
    “Obama’s not a foreigner, he just acts like one”.

  • tngal

    Is the “door” to the Arizona legal defense fund, set up by Gov. Jan Brewer to try to fend off the lawsuits that are mounting against SB1070. I call it the door because if you click on the donate button it will take you to the state-run site

    https://az.gov/app/keepazsafe/index.xhtml

    its about “keeping Arizona safe and stopping illegal immigration”.

    So, you’re probably wondering why she needs a legal defense fund. She’s going around AZ’s Dem. Attorney General Terry Goddard and hiring a private firm. It could be because Goddard has always critized the law and is a non supporter. Face it, how can you defend with all your might if you don’t support it.Maybe he’s against it because he doesn’t like it or, because he is Brewer’s opponent in the gov’s race.

    Whatever. Please check out the site. Its not for campaign contributions, its for hiring a private attorney team to fight off the garbage suits.

    Take that Hillary.

  • johnt

    aren’t going to matter. However votes do, and so does power, assuming that there is an election in 2012.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I’m expecting AZ SB1070 will be upheld, buy you never know with activist judges. If it is upheld, many states will follow-up with identical laws.

  • rsjt

    the dems are making life harder for the unemployed.

    And we have a lot more unemployed in the gulf states because of the dems policies on new drilling. I’m left to conclude the democrats hate unemployed people. We need to make sure they are unemployed after November.

  • joecollins

    My money is on Arizona.

    In the meantime, while these court cases play out, my money is REALLY on Arizona in the form of tourism and purchases.

  • Tbone

    These people are just plain lawless.

  • SteveLA

    Which court will have the guts to say this law is just fine?

    9th Circus….nope
    Supremes….maybe

  • SteveLA

    Actually, would one of the legal eagles here on RS comment on which court this challenge will appear in first? Or will this just go to the Supreme Court?

    I seem to recall that Prop 187 out here in CA was first challenged by the State AG in Federal Court. With Obama and Company challenging, Plyler v. Doe ? as the basis of the challenge, which Federal court will this be heard in first?

  • mbecker908
  • gamechange11two

    did such a bang-up job keeping the oil spill under control, will their unique set of skills bring us stronger, more secure borders as well?

  • Next93

    After all, it’s not like anyone is going to read the law first; they didn’t read the health care bill, they didn’t read the stimulus bill, they haven’t readt the Arizona law, and I’m pretty sure they haven’t read the Constitution (at least, no in English).

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    n/t

  • Next93

    As satisfying as that would be, there’s two problems…

    1) Grounds for impeachment is 50% plus 1. We don’t have that.
    2) If Obama is impeached, we get…Biden?

    This is pretty much why I never listened to the birthers; tossing Obama out on a technicality would accomplish nothing except putting Zippy the Pinhead in the Oval Office, and cement the Democratic lock on the black vote for generations. It’s also why I pray nightly for the safety of the President, and why I have regular nightmares about what would happen if both Obama and Biden were incapacitated at the same time.

    Like it or not, we have to deal with the dynamic duo through for another 2 1/2 years, regardless of the damage they do to the country between now and then. Good news is that they won’t have a lapdog congress after January. Bad news is that between November and January, they’ll have nearly unlimited power and nothing to lose.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    .

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Will this case be “fast-tracked?”

  • SteveLA

    SoFiMil

    I agree with Charles Krauthammer; the sooner this question gets to court, and decided, the better.

    I’d guess that Obama and Co do not want to fast track, especially before the November elections given the large support for the AZ law.

  • aesthete

    Hillary was the one to make the announcement, instead of Holder? Very odd, that, as it isn’t a foreign policy issue.

    Anyways, should be great fun (read: mortifyingly frustrating) to see SB1070 get held up by God knows how many courts. Mbeck notes that it will be at least 3 years; I concur, but I bet that with all the pending cases in both the state and federal court docket, and with many of them approaching with differing complaints, it will be even more than that.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Those filing on behalf of AZ SB 1070, with lots of substance. Those saying the Arizona law is unconstitutional – not.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    I welcome the challenge. This *should* be an easy win.

  • Steve Summers

    Doesn’t the administration have an obligation to enforce federal laws? Are they allowed to just ignore them? If so, couldn’t the next president simply ignore the health deform law? If not, then shouldn’t every murder and every kidnapping and every drug overdose death caused by illegal aliens in Arizona be directly attributable to Barrack Obama’s policy of ignoring the border and allowing these criminals to enter? If they attempt to sue over AZ’s law, then they should start a class action suit with all the victims, and sue Obama DIRECTLY, and PERSONALLY, for those deaths.

  • obladioblada

    she chose her words very carefully and intentionally emphasized that it was Barry’s decision to sue AZ. “PRESIDENT OBAMA has spoken out”… “Justice Department under HIS direction…” The Clintons are very precise in their prepared statements.

    Even for all of Barry’s bizarre behavior in foreign nations and the national “apologies” to China for Arizona’s law, the idea that the suit against AZ was intended to be announce by Hillary in an Ecuadoran interview strains credulity. And she didn’t say “WE have decided” or “DOJ has decided”, she emphasized that Obama ORDERED the DOJ action.

    Did Hillary go rogue? The Clintons are political animals who play to the polls and are certainly aware of the trouble that the Dems are in. And there’s no love lost between Barry and Hillary and Bill. The Clinton’s boy Carville fired the opening round to signal that it’s okay to take shots at Barry. Is Hillary distancing herself from Barry, is it the early stages of a Dem strategy to stop the bleeding by taking down Barry?

  • aesthete
  • throwback59

    “Brown Tide” Obama is willing to exploit for political reasons.

  • throwback59

    damn fingers

  • JadedByPolitics

    I was just going to find it and bring it over :)

    I donated after seeing the Governor talking about it on Greta the other night. Her AG won’t even FIGHT for Arizona which I guess means he realizes he has LOST the election!

  • ladyimpactohio

    http://www.redstate.com/ladyimpactohio/2010/06/14/obama-orchestrates-the-perfect-storm-for-elimination-of-1st-amendment/

  • aesthete

    It seems likely to me that some state or other has already tried; not sure, though. If someone has info on that, I’d like to know the answer to that question, as well.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Scope

    that the lawyers defending the AZ law will directly point to the Federal Law that has been ignored. It seems that those who wrote the law, looked at it everyway and then backwards, anticipating this action by the feds. Of course we have an out of control US Atty. Gen., and even he has said that he doesn’t know when the lawsuit will come forward. He knows he can’t win against honest judges. He is making noise to appease the Hispanics for the upcoming elections. Do you know how many years it will take for this to come to trial. Hopefully the O amd Holder will be a long past bad memory by then.

  • Scope

    may be trying to shake down Brewer, and the legislature that voted in support of the bill. Intimidation and all that. Brewer said- Bring it on, and she has the majority of support in AZ, and across the nation.

  • mbecker908

    It’s called judge shopping.

    The real issue will be what part of the law they go after. Realistically, if they go after the “stop and show papers” part it won’t really matter out on the street. We’ve long had a law that you must have a state issued ID on your person and show it to a police officer if asked for it. Those requests are typically pursuant to a traffic stop. If you don’t have an ID you can be arrested for a misdemeanor. If that happens you will get booked into jail until they figure out who you are. When you are booked on any charge several things happen automatically, like your fingerprints are run through NCIC and ICE checks your immigration status. If you are illegal you are either turned over to ICE or flagged for their custody after your current charge is adjudicated. I’ve talked to street cops and all of them have told me that SB1070 will not change one thing about police operations at the street level in this this particular situation.

  • scarchin

    Could it be that they know that the lawsuit will go nowhere and that this is just a sop to the base?

  • cactusjack

    if a classic fact pattern detention occurs, and it wends its way up to SCOTUS through appeals, it will not come before them before November elections. But…if something happens that life or property in some way are in imminent harm. or the nature of the action is to secure an injunction (stopping enforcement of the act until further adjudication), and then something has to be determined about gov’t powers in this whole thing the next level up…it could get up to US Ct Appeals or even SCOTUS on a real fast track, before Nov. Say, if someone is detained, harmed, etc under circumstances that can;t wait, and that could happen in this situation. I hae to believe O;s advisors are actually worried about that scenario esp before Novemeber.

  • lineholder

    to proclaim martial law? I keep wondering if this is something he may be hoping for.

  • cactusjack

    of that. All I can do is try to figure the constellation of values in his & his lib Dem advisors’ minds, as the psychologists say, and of that I have no doubt in his mind Federal powers=Wash DC=Bobby Kennedy 1962; State powers=Alabama=George Wallace + Bull O’Connor & barking German shepherds. To me, that makes potential confrontation more likely, even if in reality, 70% of AZ and the rest of the US are behind AZ on this one.

  • lineholder
  • Tbone

    Blacks are never going to vote Republican. They have collective Stockholm Syndrome.

  • lineholder

    It was by design. I agree with you that there are all sorts of implications in her actions.

  • joecollins

    I heard AZ State Senator Russell Pearce speak on the issue of expected court challenges. He brought up other legal challenges the state successfully has defended. He seems to have his stuff together.

    Here is a link to a good article on AZ challenges for other laws: Human Smuggling Law, Employer Sanction Law, Voter ID Law* and how AZ fared against those challenges:

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/19/state-officials-say-immigration-law-is-backed-by-legal-precedent/

    * Voter ID Law, is music to my California Voter Ears!! May it be so soon here.

  • cabanon

    in an attempt to try and recoup expenses related to incarcerating illegal immigrants. I believe they were not successful.

    SB1070 will have a rough road ahead as immigration is the domain of the Federal government.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Esp given that the language of the AZ statute mirrors federal statutes, and, more importantly, the language of the line of “stop and frisk” cases since Terry v Ohio in the 1960s.

    But also, the fact that there is so far no identified alleged victim means that the case is not ripe. The Supreme Court does not give “advisory” opinions. It only decides actual “cases and controversies”.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    impeachment, for not securing the border, as a policy, which his statement to Kyl indicates.

  • cwilson

    Oh, sure, Barry WANTED to do this, but maybe was feeling a little gunshy. So…Her Shrillness gave him a little push, right out the window.

    Next step: Bill Clinton files an amicus brief in favor of AZ…

    Lefty heads start to explode in 3…2…1…and Hillary launches her primary challenge.

    I know, I know…I’m dreaming. But goodness, wouldn’t that be popcorn-worthy?

  • tngal

    We’ve got to stop it at the frontlline.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    He’s got to now say it’s unconstitutional. Is he also going to say that current Federal law is unconstitutional as well?

  • jeffreywturner

    With an entire ecosystem being destroyed in the Gulf, unemployment stagnating near double digits, wars in two foreign lands and crippling budget deficits, Obama has the time, energy and money to persecute Arizonans for doing their best to pick up for the slack of the Federal Government in enforcing immigration laws.

    But no, this President isn’t an IDEOLOGUE at all. Not even one little bit. Yeah right.

    Someone remind me, who was that “crazy” “uninformed” former Governor of Alaska who making the case during this President’s election in 2008, that his history of hanging out with fringe left-wing terrorists was an indication that perhaps, just maybe he was an ideologue? Whatever her name was, she should probably serve the media (and even her own running mate for that matter) a nice tall glass of “I told you so” right about now.

  • Greyledge Gal

    Hillary made this “announcement” to a Spanish speaking audience in another country one day following the release of this poll:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/139379/hispanics-approval-obama-drops-2010.aspx

    The key finding of the poll:

    “The decline in Obama’s approval rating with Hispanics is seen mainly among those interviewed in Spanish: an 11-point drop in the past month and a total of 21 points since January.”

    IMHO, Hillary/Administration knew this would be picked up by non-English media and, in fact, it took more than a week to reach any US blog. This was a way to signal to Spanish as first language Hispanics living in the US (no way to tell whether respondents were legal or not) that the Obama Administration and President Obama in particular were going to fight to keep the AZ law from going into effect and thus keep the borders open.

    Most probably the emphasis that the suit was being ORDERED by Obama at his direction was purposeful and meant to make the target audience feel that Obama is truly on their side. *rolling eyes*

  • sta46

    at your Zippy the Pin Head description, I re-read your post more carefully. I agree with your points of ignoring the birthers a) on general principles and b) for a whole host of reasons not the least of which is because the alternatives coould be even worse… I know, the mind reels at that prospect.
    However I am curious if any of the legal scholars here have an opinion on the following question:
    Should we be lucky enough to draft Christie from the floor (or someone with his titanium cajones) and whomever it might be decided to open up all docs sealed by EO and the birthers (on a gazillion to 1 chance have a point) would that immediately nullify all the horrendous “legislation” opuppet has signed (HCR) and our personal favorites the up-coming cap and trade and amnesty which they will jam through in Nov?
    I am both saddened and disgusted by the Rs. Saddened because out entire political process has been so corrupted and disgusted because they haven’t figured out that taking the high road isn’t going to work in this environment and they had best learn to play dirty in a big fat hurry.
    I would be running the video of whats-his-name in NC committing assault on a student side-by-side with clips from an old James Cagney gangster movie titled “The old Chicago Way and the new Chicago Way” in every major market in the US (didn’t the msm just bury that one with all due alacrity?) they had best get their collective selves in gear and up to speed NOW and include a plan to deal with the massive voter fraud which will most assuredly take place in nov.

  • Scope

    but by the time the case goes through the lower courts, and gets up to the SC, it will be a very long time. Or, does the federal government go right to the SC?

    I’m just hearing that the AZ law was already reviewed by the 9th circuit and another court, and they found it to pass muster. So what do the feds hope to gain? Just trying to put fear into Brewer and the AZ legislature to abandon the law, or reverse it?

    I think that this news was just dumped to calm the illegals and to keep them in the D voting camp in November. Hillary spilling the beans in a South American country was done for the same purpose.

  • Scope

    from his private meeting with the O, that he was not going to close the border, and, I think Holder and the O are looking for a battle they can’t win.

  • fotophun

    looks like O is trying to set up the US to have it’s own little Palestinian problem here on the borders of Arizona and Mexico

  • Next93

    Obama’s approval ratings, absent his automatic 12% from black people, is down in the mid-30s. After November, the Dems are going to leave Obambi to twist in the wind, and might actually primary him in 2012, the Clintons appar to be already setting up for a run.

    Black people are going to see that as a betrayal, and while it might not get them immediately voting R in large numbers, it will certainly get a lot of them thinking about the wisdom of voting a straight D ticket. And once the Svengali-like spell has been broken, it’s just a matter of time before they start taking a close look at how D policies have harmed them (going back to about 1850 or so!).

  • broadsword

    That’s what Obama and the DOJ are walking into here. The chatter suggests they are going for a challenge on constitutional grounds based on that its the job of the Federal Government to set immigration policy. One slight problem with that premise aside from it being flawed is that the Arizona law makes it legal (in Arizona) for State and Local LEOs to assist with enforcement of Federal law. It in no way sets policy but merely mirrors Federal law. The AZ law has a “Reasonable Suspicion” or “Probable Cause” clause that is actually lacking from the Federal law. Remember “O”s little ice cream horror story? It was probably the Fed law he was referring to. In other words ICE agents could just snatch you off the street just because they think you might be illegal. Apparently not only has DOJ still not read the AZ law but haven’t read their own law either. This is going to get ugly folks, but not for Arizona,but for the DOJ and their blatantly incompetent “superiors”. Gov. Brewer has apparently laid a very clever trap indeed.