Move over, Anna Diggs Taylor!
Watch out , you've got competition for "worst reasoning in a judicial ruling, ever".
Judge Susan Bolton attempted to justify the injunction against parts of the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law by citing issues that aren't part of the law.
Among other things, she declared that the law would require every person arrested to be checked:
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
Judge Bolton must be thinking of the federal fingerprint initiative. Is that law to be suspended as well? Bolton also failed to note how anyone's liberty will be restricted if a check is done after they are already arrested.
Judge Bolton also attacked items that are features of the federal laws against illegal immigration.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
The requirement to carry identification papers is a federal requirement. Is that requirement to be suspended also? Judge Bolton has also declared anti-loitering laws illegal. Apparently without stating why.
Finally, she's stating that officers can't make "warrantless" arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. Is she declaring that probable cause is no longer sufficient to allow police officers to act? If they see a murder in progress they must obtain a warrant before acting?
Bolton, like Taylor, appears to have simply cut and pasted every objection to the law and placed it into her ruling without regard to actual legal support or reasoning for her judgment.
And, like the ruling by Taylor, this is destined to be overturned. You can't declare a law to be wrong because of things it doesn't do!
Judge Susan Bolton attempted to justify the injunction against parts of the new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law by citing issues that aren't part of the law.
Among other things, she declared that the law would require every person arrested to be checked:
"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.
Judge Bolton must be thinking of the federal fingerprint initiative. Is that law to be suspended as well? Bolton also failed to note how anyone's liberty will be restricted if a check is done after they are already arrested.
Judge Bolton also attacked items that are features of the federal laws against illegal immigration.
The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.
The requirement to carry identification papers is a federal requirement. Is that requirement to be suspended also? Judge Bolton has also declared anti-loitering laws illegal. Apparently without stating why.
Finally, she's stating that officers can't make "warrantless" arrests of suspected illegal immigrants. Is she declaring that probable cause is no longer sufficient to allow police officers to act? If they see a murder in progress they must obtain a warrant before acting?
Bolton, like Taylor, appears to have simply cut and pasted every objection to the law and placed it into her ruling without regard to actual legal support or reasoning for her judgment.
And, like the ruling by Taylor, this is destined to be overturned. You can't declare a law to be wrong because of things it doesn't do!