Good news? Bad news? It’s good for the moment
A federal judge in Phoenix didn’t rule on whether to block Arizona’s new immigration law Thursday after two hours of testimony in the first major hearing in one of seven challenges to the strict crackdown.
The Phoenix police officer who filed the lawsuit could be fired if he doesn’t enforce the law he has sued to block, an attorney told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who didn’t say when she’d decide whether to halt the law before it takes effect July 29.
Attorneys for Gov. Jan Brewer told U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton that the lawsuit — filed by Officer David Salgado and the statewide nonprofit group Chicanos Por La Causa — should be dismissed because Salgado and the group lack legal standing to sue and that there’s no valid claim of immediate harm.
Hey, here’s an idea: if you do not like the duties of your job, leave it. Move to a city or state that prefers to ignore illegal aliens. How about not screwing it up for the majority of Arizonans, who are in favor of the law. The judge is going to consider it, and may not rule prior to the day the law goes into effect, July 29th.
Protesters and supporters of the law gathered outside the courthouse, separated by at least seven Phoenix police officers carrying guns and handcuffs.
I just threw that last part in because it appears that the AP is rather surprised that police officers would carry guns and handcuffs. Hell, considering the way lefties tend to “protest,” I bet they were carrying an extra can of Mace, a Taser, and a billy club, plus, 5-10 of those zip tie handcuffs. Oh, and a bottle of cologne and some hand sanitizer for dealing with the Lefties.
hey here is an idea. If you believe taht part of your duties are to violate the Constitution of theUnited States don’t quit. but instead bring the case before a Federal Court. Teach what if this “law” instead said that all suspected illegals should be immediately taken to the nearest border and sent across ?
Teach what if this “law†instead said that all suspected illegals should be immediately taken to the nearest border and sent across ?
This would be known as the “strawman argument.” The fact of the matter is that the law doesn’t say this.
I suppose you are saying what would happen if the law was so blatantly un-Constitutional, should the guy bring a suit.
Clearly that isn’t the case here, but I’ll play along.
What would happen if the guy felt that arresting first degree murderers was against the Constitution? Would you support him then?
The guy is arguing that he has standing because he may be fired if he doesn’t apply the law. Well, he hasn’t been fired and the law is not yet in effect. He has no standing in this case because the law doesn’t affect him directly and any real or perceived consequences haven’t affected him.
Lastly Ryan, if you want to argue the law is illegal based on pre-emption, then the sanctuary cities and marijuana sales in California must be sued as well. The fact that they are not shows that the Feds are applying the pre-emption doctrine randomly and capriciously, which is a clear violation of the equal protection amendment.