Supreme Court Not Impressed With Obama Team On Immigration

Supreme Court casts doubt on Obama’s immigration law claim

Supreme Court justices took a dim view of the Obama administration’s claim that it can stop Arizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.

The court was hearing arguments on Arizona’s immigration crackdown law, which requires police to check the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally, and would also write new state penalties for illegal immigrants who try to apply for jobs.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.

But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Click the title to read more......

But the 53 Democratic Senators want to overrule the Supreme Court with new legislation stripping the states of their apparent rights.  Can you imagine that 53 residents of the United States have the audacity to tell over 308 million what to accept?

Inconsistencies Between Munley And Arizona Ruling

Today, an federal judge in Arizona granted a temporary injunction to the most controversial portions of the state of Arizona's new law aimed at illegal aliens.

In reading her decision a glaring inconsistency stood out when one compares it to Judge Munley's ruling in the Hazleton case.

a. Mandatory Immigration Status Determination Upon Arrest

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”

Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. (“Defs.’ Resp.”) at 10.)5 Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is unlawfully present in the country.” (Id.)

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. Before the passage of H.B. 2162, the first sentence of Section 2(B) of the original S.B. 1070 began, “For any lawful contact” rather than “For any lawful stop, detention or arrest.” (Compare original S.B. 1070 § 2(B) with H.B. 2162 § 3(B).) The second sentence was identical in the original version and as modified by H.B. 2162. It is not a logical interpretation of the Arizona Legislature’s intent to state that it originally intended the first two sentences of Section 2(B) to be read as dependent on one another. As initially written, the first sentence of Section 2(B) did not
contain the word “arrest,” such that the second sentence could be read as modifying or explicating the first sentence. In S.B. 1070 as originally enacted, the first two sentences of Section 2(B) are clearly independent of one another. Therefore, it does not follow logically that by changing “any lawful contact” to “any lawful stop, detention or arrest” in the first sentence, the Arizona Legislature intended to alter the meaning of the second sentence in any way. If that had been the Legislature’s intent, it could easily have modified the second sentence accordingly.

Here is what Judge Munley wrote in his Opinion concerning the first version of the Hazleton Ordinance.

C. Amendments to the Ordinance

On March 15, 2007, during this court’s trial of this matter, defendant
introduced Ordinance 2007-6, which has since become law in the city.
See Ordinance 2007-6 (Defense Ex. 251). This Ordinance Amended
Sections 4B(2) and 5(B)(2) of IIRA. Id. As originally written, “a complaint which alleges a violation solely or primarily on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race” would not be enforced. Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4B(2).

The 2007 amendment removed the words “solely or primarily” from these provisions, meaning that “a complaint which alleges a violation on the basis of national origin, ethnicity or race shall be deemed invalid and shall not be enforced.” Ordinance 2007-6. The amendment also altered Section 4.A of the Ordinance by adding the word “knowingly” to a provision prohibiting the recruitment and hiring of illegal aliens. Id.; see Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4.A (establishing that: “It is unlawful for any business entity to knowingly recruit, hire for employment, or continue to employ, or to permit, dispatch, or instruct any person who is an unlawful worker to perform work in whole or part within the City.”). At the end of the hearing on the plaintiffs’ complaint, we asked the parties for briefs on the effect of this amendment on the instant litigation.

The parties agree that the court has jurisdiction to issue a decision
on the current version of the ordinance. Plaintiffs argue, however, that we should also rule on the version of the ordinance that existed until the March amendment. Defendant amended the ordinance, plaintiffs argue, to avoid having this court rule on the constitutionality of the ordinance as it then existed. That amendment did not come, plaintiffs insist, because
Defendant recognized that the previous version of the ordinance violated
the constitution, but simply to improve defendant’s litigation position.
Accordingly, the court could reasonably conclude that defendant will not
cease the illegal practice embodied in the earlier version of the ordinance.

The dispute between the parties here is over whether we should also
consider the version of the ordinance that was in effect through most of the litigation in this matter. We find that we do not have jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of a version of an ordinance that no longer exists, particularly when we have–as both sides admit–jurisdiction to examine the current version of that ordinance.

In one case Judge Susan R. Bolton considers information in a prior version to rule on the present version and in Munley's case he refuses to rule on an earlier version thereby basing his decision on the latest version. Go figure.

What amazes me in both rulings is that each judge surmised legislative intent without any testimony from either legislature representatives. I guess Johnny Carson's Amazing Kreskin still lives on.

In the Arizona case Bolton wrote this statement in her Opinion. "The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests." Your honor, no disrespect but the State is telling you what its intent was and you chose to disagree. Is that within your judicial powers?

In Hazleton's case Judge Munley takes until page 90 of his 206 page decision to finally get to the "Federal Constitutional Issues".  He writes from page 13 until 90 on preliminary issues like the rights of John and Jane Doe. 

Didn't Jill Moran take a hit back in 2009 for putting the "John Doe" name to Robert Powell's IRS lien filing? Here's what Jennifer Learn-Andes wrote in her article on January 20, 2009.

Experts said her action was illegal. Federal officials were looking into the matter, but it's unclear if any official action was taken against Moran. Moran later put the lien under Powell's name in the office database.

Heck you can't even hunt a John Doe during buck season.

And those who oppose Lou Barletta feel he is trampling on the rights of illegal aliens? Go figure.

Lou Barletta strongly supports Arizona law against illegal immigration

Mayor: Where do Kanjorski, O'Brien, Kelly stand on the new law?
May 3rd

Hazleton, PA – Today, Hazleton Mayor and 11th Congressional District Candidate Lou Barletta strongly endorsed the Arizona law that cracks down against illegal immigration.

Arizona’s SB 1070 gives local and state law enforcement officials more authority to query the federal government about a person's immigration status.

“Four years ago, the failure of the federal government to address the problems created by millions of illegal aliens led me to introduce and champion the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in Hazleton. It's amazing to me that now, four years later, the federal government has still failed to secure our borders and deal with the drain of illegal immigration on municipalities and states,” Mayor Barletta said. “I commend Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona for signing into law what her courageous legislators passed. I understand the pressure they will now be under because I faced that very same pressure in Hazleton by the very same groups. I was called some of the very same names they’re being called right now.
“But, after reviewing the law and speaking with experts who helped draft the legislation, I am confident that the Arizona law includes sufficient safeguards against racial profiling and protects the rights of legal American citizens,” Mayor Barletta continued. “Just like the people of Hazleton several years ago, the people of Arizona were confronted with a dangerous problem and they looked to their elected officials for leadership. I’m proud to say I led the fight here in Hazleton, and I congratulate Gov. Brewer and Arizona lawmakers for standing tall in the face of misguided criticism.

“I'm disappointed but not surprised that the federal government is not taking any steps to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the United States,” Mayor Barletta added. “Our borders remain wide open to those wishing to sneak into this country. That poses an incredible threat to our national security. And, in these difficult economic times, the underground workforce of illegal aliens is taking jobs away from newly arrived legal immigrants, high school graduates, and other Pennsylvanians who desperately need a job.

Mayor Barletta started the national debate about illegal immigration in June 2006, when he proposed and spearheaded the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, an ordinance passed by the Hazleton City Council that requires all employers in the city to check the immigration status of all of its employees and for all landlords to keep on file a city-issued permit for all tenants. The ordinances also made English the language of official city business in Hazleton.

On the eve of the introduction of Pennsylvania’s own law, Mayor Barletta also asked where his opponents in the 11th Congressional District race – Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Corey O'Brien, and Brian Kelly – stand on the Arizona law.

“For more than a week, this legislation has been in the forefront of American debate, yet Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Kelly remain woefully silent on this critical national issue,” Mayor Barletta said. It's time they take a public position on this bill.

“I'd especially like to hear from Mr. Kanjorski, who absolutely needs to explain his inaction in securing our borders and stopping the flow of illegal aliens into the United States, Pennsylvania, and the 11th District. “He cannot continue to hide behind spokesmen. Let's hear from him directly.”