Susan R. Bolton Hands GOP A(nother) Campaign Issue
While at the gym earlier today doing cardio, I watched to see the various CNN anchors and reporter jubilant that Clinton appointee Judge Susan R. Bolton striking down the most “controversial” provisions in Arizona’s immigration law.
Given that poll after poll after poll has shown that a sizable majority of Americans support this law, this can only strengthen the hand of Republicans going into the fall elections, particularly given the Democratic Administration’s grandstanding opposition and successful suit.
Here, you have two issues, immigration and judicial overreach redounding to Republicans’ benefit.
27 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have seen to different polls, one showing the 64% of whites and about 50% of blacks support the Arizona´s law. with the least being hispanics. Another shows 60+% of whites oppose the Arizona law. The federal government has failed to enforce our immigration laws. I wonder if our immigration law prohibits even legal residents from making a political statement, namely in marches protesting the U.S. immigration policy. Immigrants, legal and illegal, who demonstrate in politacal rallies should be deported. I live in El Salvador. If I should participate in any way or make a statement in reference to anything political I am subject for deportation. I do support to the right through my family who are also actively involved. Last February a German national who was a permanent resident since 1996 was deported for his participation iwith the FMLN in a march to the presidential palace protesting not allying with Venezuela. President Funes, as a leftist, is trying to govern as a centrist with the FMLN having a slight majority in the National Assembly. You would think that they would have given the German a pass.
Comment by Roberto — July 28, 2010 @ 4:45 pm - July 28, 2010
Although the AZ Governor has not yet announced an appeal, it has been almost certain that whatever the outcome in the first trial, there would be an appeal. Just hoping the appeal process will be expedited, as a final judgement will be good for all concerned.
Comment by Man — July 28, 2010 @ 4:46 pm - July 28, 2010
I agree with Roberto. A couple of years ago, when Arizona enacted a law prohibiting employers from hiring illegals, the opposition bused in many marchers from Calif and other states . Many illegals marched, shouting anti-American slogans. Many of them marched carrying the Mexican flag, and did that ever stir up a hornet’s nest! Public opinion immediately turned against the marchers and ever since that time, public opinion here in AZ has been strongly anti-illegal-immigrant.
Comment by Man — July 28, 2010 @ 4:55 pm - July 28, 2010
The Republican Party might even capitalize on this, if we can find a single testicle among them. More likely, they’ll shy away from the issue, or go for ‘bipartisanship’ and ‘compromise’ that accomplishes nothing but furthering the Left’s agenda. (Rolls eyes and beats head against wall)
Still, we have a groundswell of Constitutional Conservatives coming up in the midterms, and that just might get the GOP off their butts. We shall see.
Comment by Wraith — July 28, 2010 @ 5:32 pm - July 28, 2010
I am in the minority that AZ law is wrong and how this is just more big government regulations and more police power. If the GOP want to make this and Issue at the least I will leave the GOP. Republicans, Conservatisms, Librals… all are just different shades of statism.
Comment by Scatcat — July 28, 2010 @ 6:11 pm - July 28, 2010
I haven’t done much research into the ruling, so I won’t comment on it. But here is a question that is nagging at me: Why didn’t Arizona do the exact same thing that RI is doing? It certainly looks like you don’t need a separate state law to achieve the same results, as RI has shown.
Comment by Sonicfrog — July 28, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - July 28, 2010
WTF? This was a temporary injunction, issued by a federal judge in a situation where a state is asserting powers that for 120 years have been the exclusive domain of the federal government. Of course the judge issued a temporary injunction while waiting to finish considering the case on the merits. I can’t imagine any judge doing otherwise.
The only way this hands an ‘issue’ to the GOP is if the GOP is willing to be intellectually dishonest about the procedural status of this case. Then again, if the Republicans are willing to make highly dubious assertions like ” a sizable majority of Americans support this law” then that sort of dishonesty should not surprise anyone.
Comment by Xenos — July 28, 2010 @ 11:55 pm - July 28, 2010
Excellent summation and I also have to say you’re brave, admitting you’re both gay and a conservative. There are liberals/progressives who would wish violence upon you for doing so – you are a contradiction that they claim cannot exist.
Good for you!
Anyway, what AZ should do next is exactly what the federal government did with respect to the court overturning it’s moratorium on gulf drilling. They should go back into session and pass a NEW law, which takes effect immediately, which remedies the alleged errors Bolton cited in her preliminary injunction.
Second, they should start to research how one gets a federal judge removed from the bench.
Comment by Bob Roberts — July 29, 2010 @ 2:09 am - July 29, 2010
Xenos, please look at the polling data. It shows that indeed a sizable majority (as in well over 50%) support the law. Please check the facts, then apologize.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — July 29, 2010 @ 3:42 am - July 29, 2010
What should I apologize for? There is some variation in the polling, although the main rounds of polling in June and May do show something like 58-60% approval.
Whether 60% counts as a ‘sizable majority’ is probably too narrow and immaterial a matter of rhetoric for an accusation of intellectual dishonesty, so I do take that back. But your cynicism runs through the post – the Arizona law is a direct affront to issues of federalism that have been settled for over a century. But I guess the anti-conservative nature of this stunt is fine with you so long as it hands the GOP an issue it can run with.
Comment by Xenos — July 29, 2010 @ 6:56 am - July 29, 2010
Securing the borders is a constitutional duty of the Federal Government. What the judge has essentially ruled is that if the Federal Government refuses to perform its constitutional duties, the states are SOL.
Also, she has codified the absurd proposition that the only people police may not ask for identification are those who are suspected of being illegal aliens.
Comment by V the K — July 29, 2010 @ 7:29 am - July 29, 2010
Xenos,
So despite the fact that the judge admits that the Federal Government can’t do it’s job, the state is obliged to follow its dictates? Last time I checked, the Constitution was not a suicide pact.
Since the state can’t enforce federal policy (asking for proof of Id, asking foreigners to product paperwork they’re required by federal law to carry) and you support this, I assume you’d support local authorities not following up on interstate kidnapping (federal law) hate crimes (federal law) BATF requests, etc?
Comment by The_Livewire — July 29, 2010 @ 8:40 am - July 29, 2010
Why is it only “big government” if it involves our fiscal policies and not wireless wiretaps or enhanced law enforcement? And more importantly, why is it only “judicial overreach” when a judge strikes down the Arizona immigration law but not the Chicago gun law?
Labeling solely politically-liberal judicial decisions as “overreach” and not doing so with conservative decisions scares me because it implies one side has total ownership over the constitution, when in fact, we are all American and our interpretation of the constitution should be valued equally. Regardless of my political affiliation I will not call a judicial decision for the other ideology “judicial overreach” because judicial decisions supporting my own ideology are, then, also overreach. Put faith in the judicial system, just like you did for the Chicago gun ban, but don’t use the judicial system only when it benefits your ideology.
Comment by Ryan P — July 29, 2010 @ 11:47 am - July 29, 2010
Ryan,
How is judicial overreach even relevent in the Chicago case and Heller? Or if you prefer what part of “Shall not be infringed” did you not understand?
Comment by The_Livewire — July 29, 2010 @ 5:07 pm - July 29, 2010
So, in Ryan’s world, when the Supreme Court affirms the plain language of the Constitution vis-a-vis the Right to Bear Arms and stops the Government from infringing the right of American citizens to that Constitutional right… in his warped mind, that is judicial activism exactly equal to a lone left-wing judge stopping enforcement of a duly enacted law based on nothing more than her own ideological biases.
SRSLY WTF?
Comment by V the K — July 29, 2010 @ 5:46 pm - July 29, 2010
Why is it only “big government” if it involves our fiscal policies and not wireless wiretaps or enhanced law enforcement?
Ryan P, go back to your fax machine. A new set of Obama talking points just arrived.
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual’s Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words — “electronic communication transactional records” — to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge’s approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user’s browser history.
Now, remember, if you criticize Barack Obama, you are a racist. Shirley Sherrod and Media Matters say so.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 29, 2010 @ 7:22 pm - July 29, 2010
68% of Americans support finishing the border fence. 67% of elite liberals oppose it. The Obamacrats couldn’t be more on the wrong side of this issue.
Comment by V the K — July 29, 2010 @ 10:12 pm - July 29, 2010
“5.I am in the minority that AZ law is wrong and how this is just more big government regulations and more police power.”
Scatcat, you’re absolutely right.
We can already see what happens when the police make immigration, and not crime, their job. We just have to look at Maricopa County. Sheriff Arpaio has been going at it for a few years now. It now takes his department twice as long to respond to 911 emergency phone calls, giving more time to thieves, murderers and rapists to get away. While crime is going down elsewhere in Arizona (like everywhere with high concentrations of illegal immigrants), crime is going up in Maricopa County.
http://www.pulitzer.org/works/2009-Local-Reporting-Group2
http://americasvoiceonline.org/research/entry/the_notorious_record_of_maricopa_county_azs_sheriff_joe_arpaio
It is simply irrational for the people of Arizona to want to follow Arpaio’s example. But it seems like they do. And what happens when crime goes up, as it will if SB1070 goes into effect?: more police power, less freedom.
Comment by arturo fernandez — July 30, 2010 @ 2:16 am - July 30, 2010
We have some ‘Concern trolls’ here I think pretending to be conservative. . .
One starts his name with an X. . .
Comment by Ryan M. — July 30, 2010 @ 7:42 am - July 30, 2010
Arturo,
Imigracion ilegal es un crimen, dundo!
Comment by Roberto — July 30, 2010 @ 11:16 am - July 30, 2010
While crime is going down elsewhere in Arizona (like everywhere with high concentrations of illegal immigrants), crime is going up in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County has one of the highest influxes of illegal immigration in Arizona.
So what you are admitting, arturo, is that more illegal immigrants = more crime.
Please state why you support criminals and attack those who enforce the law, arturo.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 30, 2010 @ 11:26 am - July 30, 2010
The day that Gov. Brewer signed the SB into law howls of protest went up not only from the illegals in the country but from the presidents, politcal analysts, and journalists in Central American contries. That very day in La Tribuna de Tegucigalpa reported that Mexican federales arrested 74 central americans entering Mexico undocumented, and it further stated that the week before 65 had been arrested. Not one word of prostest about Mexico´s impeding undocumenteds from completeing their journey to el norte. Above, I indicated that, as a resident alien, I have no right to participate in nor comment publicly on the politics of El Salvador. The fact that illegals are attempting to influence the immigration policy of the U.S. with demonstrations shows how laxed our government is in enforcing our immigration laws and the immigrants are not acting like good guests. . Middle easterners passing for latinos are entering the country with with intentions of committing terrorists acts.
Hopefully Republicans will seize the issue and put the debate into perspective. Does anybody remeber that today is the anniversary of the capture of the young hikers trekking in northern Iraq, crossed the border into Iran, illegally. An accident, maybe? However, they were not deported to the U.S nor back to Iraq, from which they came. They have been sitting in a jai in Tehran. They have yet to have their trial. What they are experiencing is not unusual; it is the law in Iran. Enter illegally and the penalty is indefinite detention. Penalties for crossing the border illegally:
North Korea – 12 years hard labor, after the trial.
Saudi Arabi – incarceration
Peoples Republic of China – you will disappear
Afganistan – same as China
Venezuela – denunciation as a spy and incarcerated.
Cuba – incarceration for an indefinte period.
In order for illegals in the U.S to understand seriousness of their crime a group of them should be dropped off in Tehran to protest those American youths sitting in jail. See how long they get away with their actions and experience the penalties they will have to pay. Another group should be dropped off in Pyongyang anf finally a group in Beijing and let´s see if we get to see them again.
Comment by Roberto — July 30, 2010 @ 1:37 pm - July 30, 2010
“20.Arturo,
Imigracion ilegal es un crimen, dundo!”
Robert, did you mean “punto!”
North Dallas Thirty, please state why you suport giving thieves, murderers and rapists more time to get away. Please state why you support criminals, and want the police to instead go after people who want to work and who by working are helping our economy. As I said above, the people of Arizona are being irrational, because they’re turning all of Arizona into what Arpaio is very effectively turning Maricopa County: a sanctuary for criminals. I’m also willing to believe that B Daneil Blatt doesn’t intentionally support giving thieves, murderers and rapists more time to get away, and more people to die. But you’re something else.
Comment by arturo fernandez — July 30, 2010 @ 11:42 pm - July 30, 2010
North Dallas Thirty, please state why you suport giving thieves, murderers and rapists more time to get away.
That’s an interesting statement, arturo, especially since you support no prosecution and punishment whatsoever for thieves, murderers, and rapists who are in this country illegally.
Don’t pretend that you care about crime response when all you try to do is block it. Don’t accuse others of this when you clearly support criminals — and demonstrate your racist beliefs by saying that criminals of a certain skin color or ethnic origin should not be punished. Your racist Obama Party doesn’t care about drug gangs killing “crackers”, but everyone else does — and that is why you and your racist Obama Party are overwhelmingly opposed on this issue.
Please state why you support criminals, and want the police to instead go after people who want to work and who by working are helping our economy.
By taking jobs away from American citizens and legal immigrants?
No. That does NOT help our economy. Indeed, it HURTS our economy by preventing those who obey the law and pay their taxes from getting a job and by increasing the drain on our welfare system.
Of course, you don’t care, arturo, because as a racist and a tax cheat, you don’t care about white people or people who obey the law being hurt. You just need to protect criminals who you think you can manipulate and use for your own purposes.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 31, 2010 @ 11:17 am - July 31, 2010
arturo,
dundo es coquial salvadoreño, es para decir estupido.
Comment by Roberto — July 31, 2010 @ 12:29 pm - July 31, 2010
correccion; coloquial
Comment by Roberto — July 31, 2010 @ 9:11 pm - July 31, 2010
“That’s an interesting statement, arturo, especially since you support no prosecution and punishment whatsoever for thieves, murderers, and rapists who are in this country illegally.”
I support prosecution and punishment of thieves murders and rapists who are in this country illegally, be they black brown white or pink. You support giving more time to thieves rapists and murderers to get away, legal ones and illegal ones, black brown white or pink.
“By taking jobs away from…”
Dundo!
Comment by arturo fernandez — August 1, 2010 @ 1:23 am - August 1, 2010