• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« FTC Breaks Up Yet Another Consummated Deal | Main | Congress Passes Bill to Cut Crack Sentences »

July 28, 2010


Andy von Salis

The "law" behind both the first two Comments here is just plain wrong, as I understand it.

Mr. South compares a Federal power (controlling immigration) with State powers (health, education, welfare and "police powers"). He concludes that the Feds have no more right to exercise a Federal power than they do a State power. Huh??

Mr. Ramos considers threats/plans to "appeal" a preliminary injunction. Huh?? - no such thing exists. True, the Supreme Court's "Circuit Justice" assigned to the 9th Circuit would surely decline to overrule the district judge and vacate the injunction, if the aggrieved party fails to ask first that a Judge of the 9th Circuit itself do so. But either one has statutory power to overrule the district judge now.

Ed Kimel

I wonder what would be the reaction if Arizona continued to enforce the state law? Who would stop them? The military? I can just see that happening. The Justice Department? The FBI?? By the time that the US Justice Department got it collective feet out of its collective mouth, precedent would be on its way to be established with some degree of success in enforcing the law. And oh yeah, where does the Mexican President get off making a public statement of support for the injunction!

Michael South

Sure, or you could say this:

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken [education] system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal [education initiatives] and would ultimately be counterproductive."

Translation: "We should be in control...yeah, you all know that we're not, in fact we don't even really care...but it's our job, and we want to continue doing it badly."

We have a "patchwork of state and local policies" about practically everything. That's how you find out what works, and what works in one place may not work in another. The states are the best place for this to be figured out, where it can be done practically, with immediate understanding of the impact on business in that area, rather that in the severely removed and way, way, way more politicized halls of the federal meddlers.

Fred Ramos

Folks in Arizona are already saying they plan to appeal today's decision to the US Supreme Court. I'm not a lawyer, but, if I remember correctly from my one college class on Constitutional Law, the decision first has to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court. Then, if opponents fail there, they have to ask for a Writ of Certiorari from the Supreme Court. It's the court's discretion if they grant that writ. Correct?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad