Breaking: Judge grants injunction on most vehemently opposed parts of AZ law!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Odd that she would enjoin the part requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers. That's required by federal law.

I have to agree, though with the hold placed on officers being able to ask for them it doesn't matter I suppose.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Odd that she would enjoin the part requiring immigrants to carry and present status papers. That's required by federal law.

Why don't read her full ruling?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Why don't read her full ruling?

It just came out, Stevie.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It just came out, Stevie.

We (Sousuke and I) have tried to explain to you at great lengths the differences between SB1070's requiring officers to ask for immigration documentation and Federal law. They aren't the same even though you and the supporters of the law have insisted. Hopefully, you will read further to understand why the judge enjoined that part of SB1070.

Edited July 28, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It just came out, Stevie.

Don't mind Steve, he is having orgasms thinking about his illegal friends getting a free ride. He will be singing a diferent tune when the SCOTUS upholds the entire law and his law breaking friends are out of luck.

[Heracles 417]

We (Sousuke and I) have tried to explain to you at great lengths the differences between SB1070's requiring officers to ask for immigration documentation and Federal law. They aren't the same even though you and the supporters of the law have insisted. Hopefully, you will read further to understand why the judge enjoined that part of SB1070.

So what do you expect Arizona to do when the federal government is not doing their job regarding this? Just sit there and take it?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Don't mind Steve, he is having orgasms thinking about his illegal friends getting a free ride. He will be singing a diferent tune when the SCOTUS upholds the entire law and his law breaking friends are out of luck.

Refrain from the personal attacks.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

Refrain from the personal attacks.

agreed

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Refrain from the personal attacks.

Not an attack but an observation and opinion.

Read the ruling here:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072810_ArizonaRuling.pdf

[Sofiyya 1,687]

We (Sousuke and I) have tried to explain to you at great lengths the differences between SB1070's requiring officers to ask for immigration documentation and Federal law. They aren't the same even though you and the supporters of the law have insisted. Hopefully, you will read further to understand why the judge enjoined that part of SB1070.

Stevie, your posts have confirmed to me that you are clueless about law and can teach me nothing. I am surrounded by lawyers every day, work hand in hand with them to influence lawmakers, and have forgotten more about it than you will ever know. I will read the ruling and then decide what I think.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Refrain from the personal attacks.

NO!

so whats the ruling say regarding carring id? that immigrants don't have to carry or the cops can't ask?....we're 3 people short at work today, help a brother out.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stevie, your posts have confirmed to me that you are clueless about law and can teach me nothing. I am surrounded by lawyers every day, work hand in hand with them to influence lawmakers, and have forgotten more about it than you will ever know. I will read the ruling and then decide what I think.

You're the one who can't come to grips with Judge Bolton's ruling. She ruled just as I believed she would. Calling me clueless just shows you're a sore loser.

Edited July 28, 2010 by El Buscador

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You're the one who can't come to grips with Judge Bolton's ruling. She ruled just as I believed she would. Calling me clueless just shows you're a sore loser.

Steve, first I am sorry for attacking you. Second, this is a temporary injuction. There is no win or lose on this yet. This will be settled in the SCOTUS and with the current makeup the law will be upheld. If you deny that then you are not being honest with yourself.

Edited July 28, 2010 by JohnSmith2007

[^_^ 5,021]

... this is a temporary injuction. There is no win or loose on this yet.

QFT.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, first I am sorry for attacking you. Second, this is a temporary injuction. There is no win or lose on this yet. This will be settled in the SCOTUS and with the current makeup the law will be upheld. If you deny that then you are not being honest with yourself.

No worries.

The injunction will hold until SCOTUS hears the case and rules on it, which may be a year or longer down the road. Russell Pierce will try and appeal this injunction in the meantime, but he'll have no luck with that. So for all intents and purposes, the major parts of SB1070 are null and void. As for how this effects the rest of the other pieces of legislation in various states that are similar, they too will have to deal with this legal precedent by U.S. District Judge.