Within the last few hours Susan Bolton, the Federal Judge hearing the case filed against Arizona’s SB 1070 – the state law cracking down on illegal aliens – issued an injunction barring implementation of the controversial aspects of that law which allow Arizona law enforcement to enforce federal laws targeting illegals.
This really shouldn’t be surprising to anybody. Bolton’s a Clinton appointee, and is on the bench in the Ninth Circuit Court’s bailiwick, often referred to as the “Ninth Circus” as rulings from this Circuit are reversed on appeal more often than from any other jurisdiction in the United States.
Also, there was never any doubt that this case would find its way all the way to the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), regardless of which party prevailed. Next step, of course, is the Ninth Circuit Court itself. Its fate there is anyone’s guess. Occasionally they get one right, as in the Nordyke case, in which they ruled that Heller incorporated the Second Amendment to the states. Who’d a thunk it? Especially in light of other contemporary gun cases, such as McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Seventh Circuit found Heller didn’t incorporate the amendment.
I predict that if the Ninth reverses Bolton, Holder et al will appeal, and there’s a very good chance that SCOTUS won’t grant cert, meaning the ruling will stand. If they do grant cert, I expect SCOTUS to uphold the Arizona law.
If the Ninth upholds Bolton, I predict that SCOTUS will hear the inevitable appeal from Arizona.
We’ve been down this road before. As I mentioned, the Seventh Circuit ruled against McDonald and for Chicago, which of course led directly to the landmark pro-gun decision in that case. In the landmark Citizens United v. FEC – the case that gutted the McCain-Feingold restrictions on the First Amendment right of Free Speech – the District Court for the District of Columbia (the Court having jurisdiction over DC, and the equivalent of a Circuit Court) ruled against Citizens United. SCOTUS reversed them. SCOTUS has generally changed direction away from activist rulings toward a much more Constructionist and Originalist direction, meaning that in general their rulings are more attuned to the Constitution as it was originally designed. That’s a very good thing.
Are there other lessons we can take from this? I think there are.
First of all, the very threat of enforcement of immigration law has reportedly caused a significant migration of illegal aliens out of Arizona. What does this tell us? That the constant liberal canard of “you can’t deport 10 million people” is just so much hogwash. This shows us that you don’t have to. If they know the hammer’s coming down, a lot of them will simply deport themselves to less “hostile” climes. Hopefully, that will be their country of origin.
Second, the hypocrisy of the Federal government – particularly the Obama administration – in essentially refusing to enforce our laws and border security, coupled with the temerity of filing their lawsuit, is simply beyond belief. Bush was lousy on this issue – he was pro-amnesty all the way – but I can’t envision him allowing a lawsuit to be filed against a state that wants to simply “do the job other Americans” – meaning the Federal government – “won’t do”.
There’s another issue to think of. The Obama Feds are positing that illegal immigration is solely a federal issue, but who’s stuck with the bills for the illegal alien population? Who pays for their emergency room healthcare, and incarceration for the lawbreakers among them? The strain on infrastructure? Educating their kids?
The states do, with no real help at all from the Feds. Yet more hypocrisy. What a surprise, I’m sure.
As I said, this is only Round One. Stay tuned; the fight will continue.