Thursday, July 29, 2010

Clinton Appointee disregards law and Constitution in support of meritless government arguments

Clinton Appointed Susan Bolton

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law), by enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."— U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton
The argument is this, If the Federal government abdicates it’s Constitutional duties (which it has) which are to protect American borders and protect the American people, is a State within the Constitution if that State enforces Constitutional laws that the Federal government refuses to enforce?

Clinton appointee Judge Susan Bolton is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with America. She has made herself complicit in the Federal government’s violation of the Constitution of the United States of America. We are no longer a nation of laws; we are now, a nation of progressive judicial rulings.(see article)

Judge Bolden did not rule on the facts of Arizona’s immigration case nor did she rule on the law. Instead Judge Bolton ruled on the nonsensical “what if” arguments that the Barry Hussein Soetoro administration have been floating in the Progressive Leftwing Media. (Complaint)(Response)(Decision)

The Soetoro administration mischaracterized this case as a civil rights issue instead of the National security or National sovereignty issue that it is. And judge Bolton foolishly bought these unreasonable arguments instead of applying the law. This is exactly the danger of an Elena Kagan and a Sonia Sotomayor on the U.S. Supreme Court because this is exactly what they will do.

The Soetoro administration argued “what if” resident aliens or even Mexican Americans are stopped and asked about their citizenship wouldn’t that be a violation of their civil rights? They also argued, “what if“ there is racial profiling would that be a violation of civil rights?

The Soetoro administration argued for the court to accept that there might be instances of civil rights violations, if Arizona police in the normal conduct of their duties ask someone in a lawful contact to show some identification. Judge Susan Bolton did.

The answers to these “what if” arguments where so simple that even a Federal judge couldn’t mess up a decision on the facts, until of course Judge Susan Bolton did. It is clear now that her apparent inability to adjudicate unbiasly and logically is probably why this Clinton appointee was selected to hear this case.

That notwithstanding, the answers are, one: we are all subject to being stopped and asked for identification. There is no undue civil rights burden placed on anyone asked to produce identification in this manner. As citizens, we carry identification with us at all times. Two, the Arizona law is explicitly written specifically to prevent and discourage racial profiling. Racial profiling is a politically correct trumped up non sequitur meant to cloud the debate and divide the America people by the Left.

Look every time you and I are stopped by the police we are asked for identification, but according to Judge Bolton’s ruling illegal aliens are now a special protected class complete with special rights, they cannot be asked the question that hundreds of thousands of Americans are asked every day, “May I see some identification.” Below are provisions of Arizona’s 1070 bill that Judge Bolton blocked.

Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.
• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."
• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)
• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

Andy McCarthy said that this decision is "nuts"

The judge, however, twisted to concept of federal law into federal enforcement practices (or, as it happens, lack thereof). In effect, the court is saying that if the feds refuse to enforce the law the states can't do it either because doing so would transgress the federal policy of non-enforcement ... which is nuts.

The judge also employs a cute bit of sleight-of-hand. She repeatedly invokes a 1941 case, Hines v. Davidowitz, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state alien-registration statute. In Hines, the high court reasoned that the federal government had traditionally followed a policy of not treating aliens as "a thing apart," and that Congress had therefore "manifested a purpose ... to protect the liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system" that would not unduly subject them to "inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." But the Arizona law is not directed at law-abiding aliens in order to identify them as foreigners and subject them, on that basis, to police attention. It is directed at arrested aliens who are in custody because they have violated the law. --Andy McCarthy (source)

Judge Bolton has done irreparable harm to the integrity and independence of all U.S. jurisprudence. Her ruling is further confirmation of the corruption of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the U.S. government.

It is apparent to everyone except the Radical Progressives and Judge Susan Bolton, that the Federal Government is engaged complicatedly with the enemies of the United States to fundamentally change this country. Change it from a country based on the principles of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers into a nation that no longer is a nation of laws but a nation of progressive judicial rulings.