BREAKING: Federal judge blocks parts of Arizona "immigration" law

[Brainonska511]

most states would be better off returning to "territory" status and reclaim state sovereignty.

Right..... You get right on that buddy.

 

[Zebo]

I didnt read whole thread but this district court nor 9th circuit has any jurisdiction to rule.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

 

[spidey07]

I didnt read whole thread but this district court nor 9th circuit has any jurisdiction to rule.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

Yep. There have been some rumblings that the judges ruling injunction is illegal. It can only come from the Supreme Court

 

[First]

Yep. There have been some rumblings that the judges ruling injunction is illegal. It can only come from the Supreme Court

It's not illegal at all Einstein (her interpretation aside since that's a separate matter). The Supreme Court has no way of ruling on matters like this immediately and have always depended on lower courts to push through their rulings until it hits their docket. The Supreme Court never sees a case that hasn't made its way through the court system.

 

[spidey07]

It's not illegal at all Einstein (her interpretation aside since that's a separate matter). The Supreme Court has no way on ruling on matters like this immediately and have always depended on lower courts to push through their rulings until it hits their docket. The Supreme Court never sees a case that hasn't made its way through the court system.

Of course. It's the injunction aspect that could be interpreted as illegal.

 

[her209]

Yep. There have been some rumblings that the judges ruling injunction is illegal. It can only come from the Supreme Court

A quick Google search turns up the OK law which requires women to get an ultrasound before aborting a fetus being blocked by a judge
http://journalrecord.com/2010/07/19/judge-issues-temporary-injunction-against-abortion-law/

Another one in Nebraska
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/a...ction-against-nebraska-abortion-law-33141.htm

Or this one in Louisana
http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/347139.html

and so on...

So what are these "rumblings" based on?

 

[Fern]

It's not illegal at all Einstein (her interpretation aside since that's a separate matter). The Supreme Court has no way of ruling on matters like this immediately and have always depended on lower courts to push through their rulings until it hits their docket. The Supreme Court never sees a case that hasn't made its way through the court system.

Sorry, not quite accuarte:

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

There are three separate routes that cases follow to reach the Supreme Court. The first, and least common, is a case under the Court's "original jurisdiction". "Original jurisdiction" means that the Supreme Court hears the case directly, without the case going through an intermediate stage. The original jurisdiction is set forth in the United States Code. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal court can hear such a dispute. An example of such a case is the 1998 case of State of New Jersey v. State of New York. In this case, the two states litigated the question of which state had jurisdiction over Ellis Island. "Original jurisdiction" cases are rare, with the Court hearing one or two cases each term.

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html

Fern

 

[feralkid]

Would you deny the impact this law has had on bringing more light onto the illegal immigrant debate?

Of course not.

Are you kidding?

 

[woolfe9999]

The only cases which are heard by the SCOTUS exercising original jurisdiction are cases where both parties are states. In a case where one party is a state, the SCOTUS could exercise original jurisdiction if it wanted to, but the SCOTUS by its own precedent has permitted lower courts to hear these cases. This goes all the way back to the Marshall Court. Any "rumblings" to the contrary are flat wrong.

- wolf

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Funny, almost everytime I heard someone cry "racism", it was almost alway a liberal or someone from the left or the misguided minority groups (to avoid personal responsibilty). Racism card is more to their forte.

There are other races (note the plural) and age groups at the Tea Party meetings, not just white. Get your facts straight.

Yup, they have to meet at night because they have to work during the daytime, you know, like normal tax paying folks.

Race baiting garbage, oh,like the Duke lacross team, L. Bradley, Keith Olberman or Christ Matthew of MSNBC, or DailyKos, or Huffinton Report, right?

You forgot the justice brothers...

 

[blackangst1]

Well, now part of a third lawsuit against Arizona is now dismissed. Thats 2 + a partial fully dismissed now. Looks like a positive trend to me

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...arizona-immigration-law-challenge-ruling.html

Judge dismisses parts of 1 immigration challenge

A federal judge on Friday dismissed parts of one of the remaining five lawsuits that challenge Arizona's new immigration law

But the ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also keeps alive other claims in the lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups.

The ruling on Friday doesn't affect Bolton's July decision in a separate lawsuit by the U.S. Justice Department that put parts of the law on hold.

Two of the seven challenges to the law have been dismissed in their entirety.

The partial dismissal of the civil rights groups' lawsuit was requested by Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Pinal County Attorney James Walsh. ​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Bateluer]

Most excellent. Just need the provisions that the federal judge blocked to be re-instated now.

 

[nobodyknows]

yea yea yea I know...........

This law applied to all people of every race, color, and creed...........

Not

You are just fuming mad, Grow Up

You first.