By
Al Waisman
Liberal activist U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who
canceled former Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s upcoming sentencing hearing for
his criminal conviction for enforcing our laws, and who had gone as far
as telling attorneys not to refile replies to motions that were pending
before his recent presidential pardon, has now done a 180 and has
decided to challenge President Trump’s Presidential Pardon.
Judge Bolton who was appointed by former President Bill “The Rapist”
Clinton appeared to have had a change of heart on Tuesday. Or maybe
George Soros paid her to change her tune and not throw out the
conviction based solely on Arpaio’s request because of President Trump’s
pardon?
Instead, she has ordered Arpaio and the U.S. Department of Justice,
which is prosecuting the case, to file briefs on why she should or
shouldn’t grant Arpaio’s request.
So basically this activist judge is actually going against a presidential pardon on principle.
I for one wish we would have had judges like her on the right when
former President Barack Hussein Obama was busy pardoning violent drug
dealers and thugs. But sadly we know all too well that would have never
been the case because the right actually follows the law and the United
States Constitution.
This isn’t the first time this rogue judge has gone against our sovereignty:
Why Judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of Arizona’s SB 1070
US District Judge Susan Bolton issued a
temporary injunction that halted key parts of SB 1070, the Arizona
immigration law, that would have required police to check the
immigration status of anyone they suspected of being an illegal
resident.
A federal judge in Phoenix issued a
temporary injunction Wednesday blocking implementation of the toughest
portions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, known as SB 1070,
but the judge allowed other sections of the state statute to stand.
US District Judge Susan Bolton agreed to
block the section of the law that required local and state law
enforcement officials to check the immigration status of those they
suspected were illegal immigrants.
That was the provision that critics said would lead to racial profiling.
Judge Bolton’s decision is an important
victory for the Obama administration in the face of a rising tide of
concern among several states that the federal government is not
effectively enforcing immigration law or effectively protecting US
borders.
Five states have introduced legislation similar to Arizona’s law, and 20 others are reportedly considering it.
The ruling adds fuel to an already heated
national debate over US immigration policy and sets the stage for more
rounds of litigation in a case that could eventually make its way to the
US Supreme Court.
In her ruling, Bolton also blocked a
portion of the law that required state officials to check the
immigration status of anyone in custody in Arizona before they were
released from jail.
The judge said the state measure was
preempted by federal law because such checks would swamp federal
immigration officials who are pursuing different priorities.
“The number of requests that will emanate
from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is
likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal
agencies away from the priorities they have established,” Bolton wrote.
The judge said the same problem would
arise under the provision requiring police officers to check the
immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. “Federal resources
will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a
result of the increase in requests for immigration status
determination(s),” she said.
The judge said the provision would also create an impermissible burden on immigrants who are lawfully present in Arizona.
Bolton concluded that there was a
likelihood of irreparable harm to the interests of the federal
government if certain provisions of SB 1070 took effect.
“The court by no means disregards
Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing
the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans,
drugs, guns, and money,” Bolton wrote.
“Even though Arizona’s interests may be
consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public
interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws,” she said.
Opponents of SB 1070 said the law would
lead to illegal racial profiling by state and local law enforcement
officials. Supporters countered that the state law was necessary to make
up for lax and ineffective border enforcement by the federal
government.
The Arizona law was deliberately written
with tough and aggressive measures designed to encourage the estimated
460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona to go home.
SB 1070 sought to make violations of
federal immigration law into violations of Arizona law, thus empowering
state officials to arrest illegal immigrants under certain
circumstances.
In agreeing to issue a preliminary
injunction, Bolton embraced arguments by Justice Department lawyers and
the Obama administration that SB 1070 is preempted because it interfered
with the executive branch’s control over immigration policy.
The Obama administration has said its
priority is to focus on those illegal immigrants who engage in crime or
are otherwise dangerous. Government lawyers said Arizona was attempting
to enforce its own immigration policy.
The judge agreed. She said the state
statute created a significant enough conflict with the administration’s
policies to require judicial intervention.
Arizona officials had argued that the
federal-state disputes that exist are over the intensity of enforcement,
not the letter and substance of federal law. They said the Arizona law
was written to mirror the provisions of federal immigration law and
should thus be appeal proof.
But Bolton, an appointee of President Bill
Clinton, said the government would likely suffer irreparable harm
should various provisions of the law take effect.
Also blocked by the judge was a section of
the law that made it a state crime for any foreign resident of Arizona
to fail to carry federally-issued immigration documents at all times.
Federal law requires that such documents be carried at all times, but
federal officials do not enforce it.
The state law sought to enforce it. In
enjoining this part of the law, Judge Bolton said that establishing
state penalties for violating a federal requirement altered the
penalties established by Congress and thus stood as “an obstacle to the
uniform, federal registration scheme.”
Bolton’s injunction also blocks the
portion of the law that made it a state crime for an illegal foreign
resident in Arizona to solicit, apply for, or perform work.
Much of the rest of the law remains intact and those provisions are expected to take effect Thursday.
The judge’s ruling means that Arizona
officials will begin enforcing the remaining parts of the law, even
while litigation about the entire law – and the enjoined sections –
continues in the courts.
Among that part of the law that will now
take full effect is a provision allowing Arizona residents to sue any
state office or agency for failing to fully enforce immigration laws.
Also still in the law are provisions
creating a new state crime of human smuggling, stopping a motor vehicle
to pick up day laborers, and knowingly employing illegal foreign
residents.
SB 1070 was passed after years of
dissatisfaction among many Arizonans with federal efforts to police the
lawless border region with Mexico. Across the border, drug cartels have
been waging a bloody tug-of-war with the Mexican government. Drug and
human smugglers have become increasingly active in Arizona’s rural
border areas.
The issue is complicated by politics and
the approaching mid-term congressional elections. Democratic strategists
are hoping the continuing controversy drives a wedge between Hispanic
voters and the Republican Party.
Republicans, on the other hand, are hoping
more Americans are concerned about crime and border security than
complaints about tough enforcement efforts. But some Republicans are
worried about this strategy in the long term given the growing political
clout of the Hispanic community in the US.
As you can clearly see from the above article, this isn’t the first
time this liberal Clinton appointed judge has gone against our laws and
sovereignty. She seems to be constantly siding with the illegal
population over law abiding American Citizens. Maybe she should try
being a judge in Mexico since she seems to hold them in much higher
regards than she holds us Americans. We have reached the point where we
need to clean out our judicial system. It’s ridiculous that a judge can
get appointed for life without ever having to answer to anyone
whatsoever.
