CBS News: Judge Issues Injunction Blocking ‘Parts’ of Arizona Law; Updated
**Written by Doug Powers
So far all I’ve read on this is a Twitter post from CBS Radio:
What “parts” are blocked is still unknown.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
***
Update (by MM):
Fox reporting that the “lion’s share” of the law will go into effect tonight.
Awaiting reaction from Gov. Brewer.
Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
Federal judge Susan Bolton has issued a temporary restraining order against the most controversial portions of the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, while keeping much of it in place. The requirement for police to check immigration status has been suspended, however, pending a full review by the court at a later date..
…This point seems key. On page 14, Bolton says that the law as written would require law enforcement to check immigration status on everyone arrested or held, not just those with “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal immigrants. That would create a huge burden on both law enforcement and on legal immigrants, Bolton writes.
Also, on page 17, Bolton appears to buy the argument that a large influx of referrals from Arizona to the ICE would have the effect of pre-empting federal policies on national security and immigration:
Here’s the Fishwrap of Record’s coverage.
***
Here’s the PDF link for the ruling.
Mark Krikorian is right: This is a bonanza for the Soros-funded open-borders litigation industry.
Update II (DP):
Governor Brewer’s statement is here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Attention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsThe murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Immigration
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Telemundo and Univision news are running gloating, non-stop coverage of this, interviewing illegal aliens in front of the Arizona Capitol. And now Telemundo is interviewing someone in Mexico City who is gloating. My head hurts.
“In essence she has taken the enforcement of the law out of the law.”
Actually it seems she’s taking the trip wire out of the law that would result in enforcement but to protect herself left the enforcement piece in. I could be wrong but it looks like she said everything is okay except finding out if the law needs to be enforced.
I gather there is a similar mechanism and process to handle moral situations in the counseling field similar to one being discussed?
Looks like I am on the same page as iamsaved.
I was thinking the police should go ahead and enforce it anyway. What are the feds going to do? Charge them with something? Can’t be enforcement of existing federal law can it?
I also saw somebody commenting that Rush said to tell the police “no habla ingles”. We certainly do need to find a few laws to ignore on a national basis, how about we pick one?
I vote for the 16th Amendment!
“I gather there is a similar mechanism”
Probably. But to flat out refuse and hold one’s breath until one turns blue and force it into the courts is probably not it.
If I am in a situation that I find violates my belief system on any level, my Christianity, my professional ethics, etc., and because I feel I am being violated and I abandon a patient, I will lose my nursing license for abandonment. And I should.
You don’t get to opt out. As a professional you follow the professional rules/regs in these situations.
So let’s see, she’d have a chance to counsel a practicing homosexual, build a professional relationship and possible influence said homosexual. And she refuses?
Who is it Jesus ate and partied with? Those perfect people?
Christianity is not so vulnerable that it can’t withstand dining with sinners.
And brother, ain’t I GLAD!
nail…
You continue to make points off the attempt to let the bait and switch of the argument stand in tact.
The court and schools decision have nothing to do with a person’s faith.
Gotta wonder though if this pre-counselor would only see clients with whom she agrees with in terms of her beliefs, wouldn’t she have a pretty small client base? As I’m thinking she thinks she’s squared away regarding her own issues.
I bet she finds the Bible does not support divorce. Gotta wonder then how many clients she’d see and actually help who were having marriage problems and heading for divorce.
Then there’s the sexual active teen girl who is pregnant and needs help to tell her dysfunctional parents who is afraid her abusive dad will beat the crap out of her. Can’t see that poor child as she practiced sex outside of marriage.
Or that 48 year old man who is a sex addict who can’t seem to stop looking at porn and masturbating. She won’t see him either as that lust thing…..
I could go on.
Let’s see nail and iam, there’s that first stone thing. And that thing about the law, you know if we decide to be legalistic the law requires we keep each and every law perfectly…..
Jan Brewer announced, in essence, that the ruling is a crock of shiite and she will fight on, as we all should.
Time for lunch and a nap. I’ll let nail and iam worry about straining out them gnats while they swallow camels.
See I is educated…..
JS, seems like you argument would preclude a minister or priest from doing any counseling.
So right, JJ. I was so mad after hearing about all this that I decided to take it out on Harry Reid and donated to Sharon Angle!
I’m sure a woman appointed by Clinton could come up some implement to help pass the time of a boring trial…
Which is why Catholic priests don’t get married………..
jsmiddleton4: Thank heavens we have the example set by Daniel and his friends in the Old Testatment when faced with a moral dilemma.
In your examples, what would you counsel that poor teenage girl to do? Have the child or abort? What do the counseling professional ethics tell you? I know what God would have you to do.
Or the divorce problem. Would you tell them to go ahead and divorce or counsel them not to?
I take it from your comments, if you counseled a homosexual, you would encourage him to leave that lifestyle. You do have a choice don’t you? Or does the Professional Standards of Counseling encourage the belief system that homosexuality is ok.
I’m glad you have the ability to separate your moral values from the ethcial code of conduct which came from man in order to perform your job.
Today, a tectonic plate shifted.
A tsunami has started.
That is my take also.
jsmiddleton4: You failed to address my earlier point re. the military personnel who follow the orders of a superior officer. The claim they were obligated to follow the orders (legal as they may be in their system) did not absolve the ones who carried out the orders.
No stones in my hands, I know I’m only a sinner saved by grace (a GREAT hymn!) but also know I can’t be part and parcel to any activity that may be legal in the secular realm, but isn’t in the eternal.
iamsaved nailed it:
“In your examples, what would you counsel that poor teenage girl to do?”
You just shot down what you’ve been arguing you see. Your question assumes that I’d at least be counseling her yes?
The question, “What would you tell her?” is not the same as “Should you see her?”
I’d be seeing this girl. I’d be seeing the homosexual. My faith is not threatened by other people’s sin.
Is yours?
This case we’re talking about the student was refusing to see them.
And Daniel is a poor example of digging in one’s heals and refusing to participate.
Daniel over and over again offered his leaders alternatives. “Sorry we can’t eat that…how about you let us eat our diet and then compare us to the boys who eat yours…?”
This case is not about religious intolerance. It is about refusing to participate consistently with the professional standards of conduct for said profession.
118 GladzKravtz:
Obama’s motorcade is supposed to drive by my house. I think I’ll moon him.
“I think I’ll moon him.”
If he stops and worships you, then I’m thinking that yes, he probably is a Muslim.
The BIG one, on which Daniel wouldn’t compromise, was an alternative to whom he was to worship. At the risk of his life, Daniel worshipped the one, true God, period!
Brilliant!!! I love this site.
*Remember what JFK said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”; If I were Gov. Brewer, I would begin to enforce the law, tell the Feds to go pound sand, and let’s bring this thing to a head!
If I go into a store and the clerks are yammering in Spanish, I’ll speak Russian. If they refuse to serve me, I’ll sue. Discrimination.
THE ONE would rather appear on THE VIEW than speak at the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America. He declined an invitation to appear for the boy scouts so that he could have his feet washed by Whoopie and Joy.
Tell you what else nail and iam… Talbot Seminary is basically Dallas Theological Seminary of the west coast. Totally committed to dispensational premillenialism. I happen to be more of the reformed school of theology, Sproul-guys like that, and I had to sign a paper at Talbot that basically said I’d not rock any boats by challenging the dispensational theological position of the seminary.
If I did, if I started getting all in their face about Galatians the the promise made the to SEED is singular and in Jesus I am in Abraham and their just may not be all this back and forth and up and down and Israel just might be the same as the church, Talbot Seminary would ask me to either enter remedial training to reform my position or leave the seminary.
And they’d be right in doing so.
In my admission I agree to certain contingencies. I violate those “agreements”, I should be asked to leave.
The contingencies of this secular program were clear. This girl doesn’t get to re-write the rules after starting the game.
If Talbot asked me to leave it would not be because they were oppressing me as a Christian.
Just so you know they never did and I graduated with honors and even was a professor’s assistant for awhile and taught some January term classes at Biola.
Arizona has an abundance of readily available sand!
Start pounding DOJ!
Wrong example. Try the lion’s den and the hot furnace. All were faced with a choice.
You didn’t answer the questions did you? How would you counsel them? Would you use your moral beliefs based on biblical truth or the guidelines set by a panel of men and women (more than likely with a fairly liberal worldview).
Eventually, it comes down to the individual who is making the choice on which course of action to pursue. Especially in a case where you aren’t aware of a person’s lifestyle prior to your first counseling session.
“How would you counsel them?”
Don’t need to and not going to. The point is and you seem to be missing it, I’d be counseling them. I wouldn’t be refusing to participate.
You seem to be bent on the only option is to refuse to participate and if I don’t, something is suspect.
Sorry but you don’t get to cherry pick on instance here and there. Daniel clearly held his ground on his beliefs and at the same time looked for options that would put everyone in a win-win situation.
And if I remember correctly, Jesus set the standard now for our conduct, not Daniel?
Ate with sinners he did young Luke…..
Nap time.
Probably? You’re making a broad comparison between your field and this grad student’s field without knowing a potentially key difference?
I really think it’s important to find out if that mechanism exists and the specifics of the grad student case before you pass judgment.
Expelling a medical student from medical school because he refused to perform an abortion due to his religious beliefs would be wrong. You don’t know if the facts of this case are much different.
Counselors are faced with all kinds of real world situations that are a violation of values and ethics. You get a client who is a child molester and wants to molest children. As a counselor your values while hopefully diametrically opposed to and disgusted with this client, you don’t get to refuse to see them and abandon them. If you do, you’ll be held liable for not doing the professional proper thing.
At issue in this case is professional conduct, what that looks like, and being held to it as a standard. This student did not do so. Court and university totally correct in their action and judgment.
Glad you did so well in school. Congratulations.
However, you set aside your beliefs so you could get a good education and the school set aside its standards to let you in in the first place.
I still believe, iamsaved nailed it, but now with a slight change:
Southpaw …
Вы говорите русского?
jsmiddleton4: You win. Too much time and effort on a pointless argument. Not one world problem has been solved. Come to think of it, there never is on the blogs.
“Expelling a medical student from medical school because he refused to perform an abortion due to his religious beliefs would be wrong.”
Actually if a medical student refused to participate in the proper and professional way he or she should be expelled.
Which is what this case is about as well.
You don’t as a professional get to pick and choose which parts of the professional conduct of the relevant profession you will or won’t participate in. As a professional you are obligated to follow the rules. There are rules for handling cases which you find objectionable.
The details of how that is handling for student counselors is not something I am aware of. Sorry if you think that means the general principle is flawed. You are wrong. But sorry none-the-less.
Gee iam, that’ quite passive aggressive of you.
“However, you set aside your beliefs so you could get a good education and the school set aside its standards to let you in in the first place.”
Huh?
Both were openly acknowledged and put in their proper perspective.
So why doesn’t Arizona do what Obama did when the court blocked his drilling moratorium. Just do it anyway.
jsmiddleton4: Thank you.
Ate with the sinners he did you Skywalker….
I kinda like that.
Sweet dreams.
I know a counselor iam that could help you with that passive aggressive thing.
Of course after reviewing the list of your sins, he may not be able to help you.
However given that you decided you could judge me as an unbeliever, you might be able to cast that first stone.
Я учился в средней школе. Китайцы также.
That may be true, but to win a Temporary Restraining Order (this stage), one must prove that they have a “reasonable likelihood of success on the merits” in the hearing to gain the the Injunction. Quite often, the hearing on the TRO foretells the decision on the Prelim Injunction. Does not look good. The appellate process will likely be needed before this decision can be overturned. Doesnt look like the Judge will overturn herself in the PI hearing.…
I don’t have a problem with the general principle!But I might have a problem with how the “general principle” is specifically handled by certain professions and student programs of those professions.And since you admit that you don’t know how the “general principle” is specifically handled then I assume you might have a problem with it to – if you knew – which you don’t.
You admit that you don’t know enough to know that I’m wrong.
It just seems to me that what we are witnessing is a complete breakdown of process. Need I ask how much drug cartel/”too big to fail” bank money was involved in this decision?
Translation:
I studied Russian in high school. Chinese also. It’s been a while, but I still know enogh to baffle a couple of store clerks, yammering in Spanish. I also understand more Spanish than they realize, a big advantage.
I never said they weren’t — just stating the obvious.
Your comment about the Az decision is going to get you in trouble with jsmiddleton4….you are off her topic.
Southpaw …
Я выучил от военного ведомства.
Southpaw …
Also speak Spanish and Italian …
We used to have a bunch of (USA born) Hispanics who liked to chat in Spanish at work. Occasionally another clerk and I would counter by conversing in German. It would drive them crazy.
Southpaw …
Defense Dept Language School …
I speak computer languages. I will use LISP as my native language.
Ah well, not unexpected. We are in it for the long haul, all the way to SCOTUS, if need be. There is too much at stake to just give up. In the meantime, hopefully, the self-deportation of illegals out of Arizona will continue.
Mister P …
Binary? Hexadecimal? Boolean? …
One of my favorites to use on store clerks yammering in Spanish:
哪种方式向I.C.E.代理商？
Translation:
Which way to the I.C.E. agents?
Southpaw …
But it doesn’t rule out other female orientated items now does it….lol
How about:
“Yo soy I.C.E. — Que pasa?”
(defun IAmAlwaysRight ( return T))
Mister P …
I like …
10 Smack forehead on wall
20 GOTO 10
160
I speak a little eye-talian, and too all the libs and trolls out there, I offer a hearty fun-ghoul (and not for Halloween either)
Sounds like we have a Mexican gold rush on our hands. A federal government which refuses to enforce statutes on the books and actively thwarts states from protecting their territories. You legal eagles out there need to tell me why the sitting chief executive of the federal government should not be charged with malfeasance, non-performance, something….
What options are there for redress when there is this level of criminal incompetence or political sedition? I am at a loss to describe this historic collapse of the public trust. It’s frankly unbelieveable.
John, I see you speak BASIC
Now here is the Terry Goddard we loved to hate why mayor of Phoenix.
On July 28th, 2010 at 3:32 pm, Southpaw said:
I love the idea! Southpaw and Desert Lover: Я также говорят на русском и персидском. Другой обороны # Формулировка Институт выпускников.
Also out of practice since the end of the Cold War. But still good enough to mess with any Spanish speaker. Like you guys Yo entende espanol. Just my accent is terrible.
nail49 …
These work also …
¿Dónde está la oficina de I.C.E.? …
or …
¿Te sabes el número de teléfono para I.C.E.?
I like going all Alinsky on this situation:
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Este juez es muy estúpido.
This judge is very stupid.
ssnark …
Больш. Я интересую здесь говорит русского и теперь много других языков?
Sorry … no Persian here …
…
I will deliver a scathing reply in Swedish: Yen svesters bjongard dip djuut loom voortebourta bienist byootankjest.
Southpaw …
Este juez tiene una agenda de la izquierda.
180
And to that I say Bialystock and Bloom!
Hey hombre. You give us the money. We give you the woman. Hey hombre. You put a hole in me.
I’m thinking we just need a few militant Apaches to sort this out.
Reddog …
Sorry … no Swedish … but am sure someone else here probably understood … seems like a lot of multi-lingual commenters here …
#33 says this is chaotic. I wrote in some thread a few weeks ago that CHAOS is what the Demons are banking on. The CHAOS will create a perfect opportunity for THE WON to cancel elections, just to be on the safe side, and then take over the US. Mark my words. Hardly anyone can defend what is going on any more. I think the US is in serious trouble. It doesn’t make any sense any more.
We cannot give up…
Don’t worry, it’s gibberish. But a Mexican would not know the difference if the words are delivered with passion.
And just to prove we’re not racist, a little Ebonics:
Ay bi havin’ mo wurdz fo dis here discuss-on.
Dis some ICE yo! Ice is like gold an shih – Yo – BAYAM!!! Representin!
No doubt. This is part of the soft coup strategy. They won’t go so far as to try to cancel elections but they will continue to disrupt the social fabric as much as possible until we do have civil chaos. Then they will move in with direct/overt action. The prospects are truly frightening.
Kagan the pagan will have to be moved out of the way for this Judge. Another North American Union Marxist POS.
Still OT
“Affirming way”?
Gee Dr. Mengele, I really didn’t want to do that – but at least the other twin is ok? Right? Right? Anyway it’s a nice lampshade.
My last thought for today until it is on topic.
Enforcing is hard, gosh darn it, so let’s call it an “impermissible burden,” even though the federal government’s own law allows authorities to check with INS over immigration status of any individuals within their jurisdictions “for any purpose authorized by law.”
Ah, right, federal law takes precedent over state law. Does federal law have a limit to making requests to INS?
Checking immigration status does not amount to “inquisitorial practices and police surveillance.” Now they’re using unfounded Orwellian scare tactics to make their argument. This isn’t the PATRIOT Act Part II. This is a state trying to enforce what the feds are lax in enforcing.
They have to consider that after the initial wave of referrals to the feds, the requests for immigration status would go down once people start complying with the law.
What kind of burden is this supposed to be? Do we not have a Social Security database? What makes checking immigration status so difficult? Does E-Verify burden our resources? Why can’t local and state law enforcement use a similar reference system?
A law enforcing a law is a pre-emption of the law. What a farce.
Sorry if I’m repeating what others here have said. I haven’t read all the comments yet. I also haven’t read the complete 36-page judicial order yet.
And I’m not a lawyer, but I can read and comprehend things and stuff. This comment is just my initial reaction, which I’m open to changing when I feel like it. I don’t feel like it yet.
Here’s what the Court thinks the DoJ can pursue successfully:
And those are the things that Arizona can’t enforce for now, if read it correctly:
Here’s the amended AZ law for reference.
“Oh, stewardess! I speak jive.”
It’s time for a grand boycott of every single business, nation wide, that even thinks about hiring them. I want to support AZ, but if employers there haven’t gotten the message I don’t feel sorry for them, and the same goes for every other state. If revenue falls to where some go out of business, fine. If you can’t make it without hiring slave labor, and expect me as a taxpayer to fund the safety net for their benefits, then you shouldn’t be in business to start with.
To see what parts she has restrained, she’ll have to read it first.
I thought that the idea of racial profiling was not addressed in the Government’s lawsuit…but the judge ruled on that anyway??? Liberals!!!!
Not for long if the Obamalosi get their way.
Maybe I am a little bit simple in my thinking, but …
It would appear that all this judge actually did was to protect the federal government from the potential costs they would have IF those parts of this law were enforced. Seems to me that the rest of her paperwork is all just throw away at this point.
When the actual trial occurs, I suspect this entire discussion will be different.
Nice.
It really doesn’t matter who we vote for come November, if Obama doesn’t like the outcome of the elections he’ll find some pet judge to rule the results null and void while declaring himself ruler for life.
Ask yourself why they’re so hellbent on getting amnesty for all these illegals while the Holder DOJ does all it can to hamper the Republican votes of our servicemen/women: http://tinyurl.com/3yso3g7l.
Obama will never be voted out of office, nor will the nation-destroying Democrats running the show right now. This is our life, so you’d better get used to it.
By the same judge?
Been out being a lawyer…
have not read the decision, but…
keep faith. The Ninth HAS overturned rulings on immigration law by lower courts.
Listen to Levin, if you get him. He’ll have some good analysis, and be assured that really good attorneys are dissecting this ruling as we speak.
Remember, too, it is a preliminary ruling, and it will be revisited.
I can say 5 things in Italian and that is one of them.
=======================================
jIH jatlh tlhIngan (I used to, but I forgot most of it).
Μιλώ τα ελληνικά. (Again, I used to, but forgot most of it.)
Desert Lover:
I’d guess there’s a number of old “Cold Warriors” hereabouts who’d understand Русский. I even have the languages (along with Pushtun) loaded so that I can write in them as needed.
I wish Texas would call out its state militia to patrol the borders. No need for an SB1070 type law if the illegals are met by well armed military patrols and turned back at the border. Our border with Mexico at 1254 miles is a bit big for a fence like the one Phil is so d#%^ proud of. But we can refill the illegal’s water bottles and send them back across the Rio Grande.
http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/07/crash-washington-isnt-even-trying-to.html
Andy McCarthy will provide you some good stuff.
Blackstone …
Yes … same judge … but at a full hearing there will be a standard of PROOF … not the standard of REASONABLE EXPECTATION of the effects of the law being implemented that is all that is needed to issue an injunction …
besides … there has to actually be a final ruling before there can be an appeal …
meanwhile they can go back and request the judge to “reconsider” her reasons for issuing the injunction after which they can appeal the injunction … but that will only apply to the injunction …
the full hearing on the law itself will still have to take place at some point … and then the real fun will start all the way to SCOTUS …
Keeping in mind that a stacked court was an essential prerequisite for Hitler’s ‘success’.
By winning on SB1070, Obama and the Dems lose BIG in the future. I think in a few years anyone who has the stupidity to admit they are a Democrat will find him or herself in the same likeability as a Nazi.