« | »

DOJ Will Challenge AZ’s Immigration Law

From a cheering CBS News:

Senior Official: Obama Administration Will Challenge Arizona Immigration Law

By Brian Montopoli

June 18, 2010

As Hotsheet reported yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a television interview in Ecuador this month that the Obama Justice Department "will be bringing a lawsuit" against the controversial Arizona immigration measure signed into law earlier this year.

The comment was striking because both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had said only that the administration was considering a suit. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called Clinton’s comments stunning and added that "to learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous."

It was unclear yesterday whether Clinton’s comments were simply a prediction or mistake or whether instead she was getting ahead of a planned announcement by the administration.

Now a senior administration official tells CBS News that the federal government will indeed formally challenge the law when Justice Department lawyers are finished building the case. The official said Justice is still working on building the case.

Contacted about Clinton’s comments today, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said they reflected her beliefs.

"The Secretary was asked about the Arizona law during a TV interview in Ecuador," he said. "She believes that a better approach is comprehensive immigration reform, and said so. Regarding how far along the legal review is, that is a matter for the Department of Justice."

Despite the senior administration official’s comments, an official at the Justice Department told CBS News today that the question of whether to sue is still under consideration…

Thank God our Department Of Justice has its priorities straight.

We certainly can’t have the states enforcing our federal laws like this.

How will Democrats win elections?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, June 18th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “DOJ Will Challenge AZ’s Immigration Law”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Un-effing-believable.

  2. Chinnubie says:

    I thought the same thing; how on earth can they sue themselves because the law in question has already been written by the Federal government. Are they attempting to circumvent themselves in a suit like this? Arizona simply states that they are upholding an already concieved law by the Fed. This is literally ludicrous!!

    The extent to which this administration will go to politicize a topic, runs the risk of sheer stupidity. I thought these were the people we’ve been waiting for, that they are the smartest group ever assembled in a presidential administration.

  3. U NO HOO says:

    Aint it pelosi who said “Are you kidding?” when some asked her if something was constitutional?

    I’m just saying and aksing.

  4. proreason says:

    I can navigate ok in just about any city if I have a map.

    I can read a map well enough but the real secret is sensing when the current path isn’t working….before driving or walking too far out of the way. It probably has something to do with keeping track of time and knowing about how long it shoud take to reach a checkpoint or landmark.

    Obamy, on the other hand, couldn’t navigate to the nearest 7/11. He wouldn’t change direction if he was driving 100 feet underwater. Has there ever been a more stubborn idealogue than this moron?

    Besides proving he is about as smart as a pet rock, it makes him EXTREMELY dangerous.

  5. Rick Caird says:

    I am really curious about the legal argument they are attempting to develop. If all Arizona is doing is a mirror of the Federal law, the feds cannot imply Arizona should not enforce the law because the feds are not enforcing their law. It would be hard to argue preemption. I wonder if all this is really a smokescreen, Holder will file suit, but he will have no arguments and hence will lose. But, it will look as if the feds did something. Isn’t it great to have a captive legal department and unlimited funds to deploy them?

    • heykev says:

      What is also interesting (at least to me) is that AZ Governor Brewer has basically fired her Attorney General because he has a conflict of interest in this case.

      According to FoxNews: “She invoked a provision in the law to have private attorneys represent the state. They already are representing her in some of the legal challenges to the law that name her as a defendant.

      But Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard says Brewer can’t kick him off the case. Goddard’s top aide, Tim Nelson, said Saturday that Brewer can’t invoke the provision because it hasn’t taken effect yet and that there are constitutional questions.”
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/29/arizona-governor-removes-states-attorney-defense-immigration-law/

      I expect it to get more rancorous and divisive in AZ before all is said and done. I believe this could be the smoke screen that BHO is looking for. Having infighting within the state and once it’s decided who will represent AZ, it will be past November and nothing will be accomplished. Just a lot of fighting and the laws not being enforced.

  6. jrmcdonald says:

    The country is drowning in debt, and obama spends money to help criminals. Time to throw the bums out.

  7. FCAFlyer says:

    Right, Rick. On what grounds (there has to be grounds to file a law suit) is it being filed? That the Federal Law is illegal? Then they will have to repeal the Federal Law which will completely open the border with no restrictions at all to entry to the US by anybody on any border – even by sea or air from any Country. That Arizona has no right to enforce the law, even if it’s a Federal Law? If they win that argument, then Arizona can immediately countersue the Feds for dereliction of duty in failing to enforce their own law. AND, if the Fed wins any part of this lawsuit at all, then there goes States Rights for all States in the Union. States will no longer have the right to do anything the Fed doesn’t allow them to do – – but then – – isn’t that the game plan all along?

  8. imnewatthis says:

    Boy, I like that Jan Brewer. She’s brave and un-pc and actually stands up for the citizens she represents. I could never picture a politician in this state doing and saying the things she’s been. Meanwhile, our local Massachusetts towns are wasting their time deciding to officially boycott Arizona.

  9. bill says:

    So now states cannot enforce any federal laws? Be careful what you wish for. I suspect the thug just wanted to try and intimidate but failing that, what’s a thug to do.

    I hear the CG and the unions are building skimmers rather than using the overseas loaners.

    Looks like Obama is living up to the expectations placed on a street corner agitator.

  10. Mithrandir says:

    :::::CRIMINAL BROKEN PROMISE:::::

    “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    UPDATE:

    The Obama administration has decided to prosecute and punish its own citizens (in violation of the law and oath)
    to side with the criminals entering our country. . .

  11. proreason says:

    Here’s something I’m pretty sure about.

    This country did not vote for a president 2008 who intended to make himself the sole arbiter of everything that happens in the USA.

    Other than the 5% of us who paid attention and didn’t believe the lies, the rest of the country thought they were voting for someone who was optimistic and would work within the system to make improvements that the majority of the public agrees with.

    The country was conned.

    If this person isn’t guilty of high crimes I don’t know who possibly could be. What higher crime is there than overruling the will of the people on EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POLICY INITIATIVE FOR 18 MONTHS.

    And btw, this isn’t even a partisan issue. Even if I agreed 100% with what the Moron does, consistently overruling the will of the people would still be a huge huge problem. Because the next dictator wouldn’t be as good.

    The choice is simple and clear. Either the country is based on the will of the poeple or it isn’t.

    That’s the choice in November.

    Freedom or tyranny.

    • proreason says:

      And one more thing to complete the point.

      It’s common to say that the people are stupid and shouldn’t rule themselves, but that is a vile myth perpetrated by marxists and other power-mad totalitarians who want absolute power for themselves.

      It’s the same reason that capitalism and free markets are infinitely better than Central Planning.

      Even if it were possible to find a few brilliant, objective, compassionate, far-seeing Central Planners or politicians, it is simply impossible for any small group of people to be wiser than 300 million people constantly evaluating what is best for themselves, and hence, ultimately what is best for the economy and the country. This has been conclusively proven over the last 230 years, since this country was founded. It might not be true for a country of uneducated, primitive people who aren’t experienced with Republican forms of government…..but it is certainly true for the USA.

      You see the proof every day. The BP oil spill is the latest example. The “Stimulus” is another. Fannie Mae is another. In fact, as you know instinctively……Big Government fails every time. Failure is INEVITABLE, because huge bureaucracies simply cannot react fast enough to contend with the complexities of hundreds of millions of people and onrushing of events that are simply unpredictable. Only millions of people constantly evaluating what is best in continually changing environments are that smart. Not perfect, but many times smarter than a handful of arrogantly ignorant narcissists who are motivated almost exclusively by greed.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Great Stuff, Pro and to add to that is this bit from AT: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/slaying_leviathan.html

      Pretty much puts it in a frame of reference many can understand…even me.

    • proreason says:

      That’s a great article Rusty. I hadn’t seen it but everybody should read it and internalize it.

      Money quote:

      “We should not be sending people to Washington to fix America’s big government. We should be sending them there to dismantle it. We will never be well again until we realize that Leviathan cannot be tamed. It must be slain. You fix government by dismantling it, not by reforming it. ”

      The author has a similar slant to my comments and makes many additional point, including one that will stop most people in their tracks. Despite everyone’s adulation of Reagan, look what happened when he left office. He didn’t dismantle big government, and although he was by far the greatest leader of the last 100 years in this country, now that he is gone, look where we are. As he said, Big government isn’t the solution. Big government is the problem.

  12. Liberals Demise says:

    Snake Oil Peddling from a Snake!!

  13. proreason says:

    Another reason to impeach him. He told Jon Kyl they won’t enforce border security because if they do, noone will support amnesty.

    Via Redstate via Hotair:

    http://www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/06/20/obama-tells-kyl-in-private-oval-office-meeting-i-wont-secure-border-bc-then-republicans-will-have-no-reason-to-support-comprehensive-immigration-reform/

    The law means nothing to this criminal.

    And I always thought the bad guys in the Batman comics and movies were fictional exagerations.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »