TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:"Judge Blocks Arizona Law"

That is not in the least accurate. What Judge Bolton really did is issue a temporary injunction against some provisions of the law. The law still went into effect today.

Some of the most meaningful provisions are not being enforced. Why? Because the Judge blocked those parts of the law.

It's true the judge didn't overturn the law but she was effective at blocking many parts of the law. The DOJ filed their suit July 6th and she heard arguments and blocked parts of the law less than a month later.

Does anyone want to bet if the AZ Governor's appeal will get before a judge less than a month after her filing?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 5120120424" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070, will head to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, when the justices are scheduled to entertain oral arguments in Arizona v. United States.

The Court will focus on the four sections of the law enjoined by the Ninth Circuit in April of last year. Those provisions:

(1) require police to verify the immigration status of anyone they stop if they suspect he or she is undocumented;

(2) make it a state crime for a non-citizen to be without registration papers;

(3) make it illegal for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job; and

(4) authorize police to arrest anyone they believe has committed a deportable offense.

And just in case the U.S. Constitution gets in the way.

Senate Democrats are pushing new legislation aimed at nullifying Arizona's controversial immigration law -- just in case the Supreme Court, which hears the case Wednesday, upholds the policy.

The proposal, announced Tuesday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., would stand virtually no chance of passing in the Republican-controlled House. But it marks the latest preemptive challenge by Democrats to a high-stakes Supreme Court decision.

The immigration case arrives at the high court Wednesday just weeks after the justices heard arguments in the multi-state challenge to the federal health care overhaul. Though the justices are not expected to rule in that case until summer, President Obama had cautioned the "unelected" judges against overturning his landmark domestic policy accomplishment -- claiming such a move would be "unprecedented."

Schumer's fallback option on the Arizona immigration case holds a similar message. If the high court upholds the law, the congressional proposal would be a direct rebuke to that decision.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04 ... z1szhZd65Z" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oral arguments have concluded. Now all that is left is the wait.

From the L.A. Times

Supreme Court skeptical of striking down Arizona immigration law

Before U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. could deliver his opening comments, chief justice John Roberts in an unusual move interrupted to say that “no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling.”

Verrilli agreed and said Arizona’s law should be struck down because it conflicts with the federal government’s “exclusive” power of immigration.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... 0201.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Purplehood wrote:

tomneal wrote:http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

This is an interesting take on the issue. Only the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction in a lawsuit with a State.

I admit to ignorance. When it says, "State" does it refer to the individual states or is it in context with the rest of the sentence and mean a foreign state (nation)?

I believe both interpretations are accurate. (Though that leaves unanswered the obvious question of why AZ would've bothered with lower courts. Perhaps this is evidence of me being wrong.)