Brushing aside her own attorney general, Gov. Jan Brewer announced Monday she hired a former national solicitor general to be lead counsel in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let the state begin enforcing last year's immigration law.
In a prepared statement, Brewer said Paul Clement has "an impeccable nationwide reputation for his expertise in appellate and constitutional litigation." She said he is "well-suited to lead our excellent legal team."
The move caught Attorney General Tom Horne by surprise. In fact, Horne, attending a conference of Republican attorneys general in Wyoming, told Capitol Media Services he heard of Brewer's decision just hours before the governor's announcement despite publicly stating earlier this year he was ready and able to argue the defense of SB 1070 to the nation's high court.
Several hours later, his office put out a prepared statement calling Clement "an outstanding attorney" and saying his "addition to the legal team" will help win the case. But Horne has been put in a position by Brewer where he cannot discuss the move, since she is the client and he is her lawyer.
"As you can understand, this is all we are saying," he said.
Relations between Horne and Brewer have been rocky since a separate joint press conference in the governor's office where the pair announced they were going to ask a federal judge if Arizona can enforce its medical marijuana law despite federal statutes making possession of the drug a felony.
The governor, after being hit with several questions, declared the press conference over. But Horne stayed behind, leading to complaints by gubernatorial staffers that he should have followed her lead.
Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said hiring Clement - and having Horne in a support role - makes sense.
"Preparing petitions and arguments before the Supreme Court is exceptionally specialized work," he said. "Paul Clement is recognized as one of the best in the business."
Benson acknowledged that Brewer did not tell Horne about the move ahead of time, or even ask his advice as the state's top lawyer of who to pick.
"This is the governor's decision in terms of who she feels can best represent the state in defending SB 1070," he said.
The law, approved last year, is designed to give state and local police more power to detain and arrest illegal immigrants. It requires that officers question those who they already have stopped if there is reason to believe someone is in this country illegally. Another provision makes it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work in Arizona.
Horne had no role in the case until this point, with all the prior arguments before a trial judge and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals taking place before he was elected attorney general last year.
Brewer had dismissed Terry Goddard, his predecessor, saying she was not convinced he would properly defend the law. That left the lead to John Bouma, a private Phoenix attorney whom Brewer brought in.
But Bouma was unable to block U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton from issuing an injunction last year, just days before SB 1070 was set to take effect, barring the state from enforcing key provisions. He also was no more successful last year in getting the appellate court to dissolve the injunction.
Horne, who campaigned on a promise of defending the law, said he was prepared to take control of the case.
At this point, technically speaking, the issue is not the legality of the law but only whether Bolton erred in issuing the injunction.
But Clement will have to convince the high court that the law is likely valid. That's because both Bolton and the appellate judges, in enjoining the law from being enforced, ruled that its provisions are probably preempted by federal law.
That, though, is only half the issue. To issue or sustain an injunction, a court also needs to weigh what are called the "balance of hardships," meaning who is more likely to be harmed if a law is or is not enjoined. And to this point, the courts have said the state's complaints about not being able to enforce its immigration law are outweighed by the foreign policy problems that would be created by letting Arizona have its own laws.
Clement will be paid a flat $150,000 to prepare the petition asking the Supreme Court to accept the case, and to file answers to whatever response made by the challengers of the law. The petition is due July 12.
Benson said if the justices agree to actually hear the case, the amount Clement will be paid will be worked out later.
Clement, like Bouma, will be paid out of a special defense fund the governor set up last year.
As of the end of last week, more than 45,000 people had given a total of almost $3.8 million. Deducting the bills already paid to this point left more than $1.8 million in the account.
The decision to bring in specialized counsel to argue before the Supreme Court is not unusual.
Brewer said that Clement has argued 50 cases before that court. And Bouma, who said he does not have extensive Supreme Court experience, said he was not insulted by the governor's move.
Dale Whiting posted at 6:12 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.
"As of the end of last week, more than 45,000 people had given a total of almost $3.8 million. Deducting the bills already paid to this point left more than $1.8 million in the account."
Yes, fools and there money are soon parted, here $2.0 million worth!
Slabside posted at 7:51 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.
"Yes, fools and there money are soon parted, here $2.0 million worth!"
This coming coming from the dolt, that by his own admission belongs to a cult that requires all of it's members to tithe at least 10% of their incomes to "make it to the highest kingdom of Heaven (a better Heaven that the normal run of the mill Christian will enter). Black people were not allowed to have the priesthood until 1978. Females are not allowed to have the priesthood (no wonder Captain Neo-Con agrees with Sharia Law... it treats women the same way the Mormons treat women.).
concernedcitizen posted at 9:40 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.
What I have heard about how Mormons treat women...The first documented women voters in modern times were in Salt Lake City in 1870. Mary W. Chamberlain was elected mayor of Kanab, Utah, and had an all-female town board, in 1912. The first woman state senator elected in the United States (Dr. Mattie Hughes Paul Cannon, 1896) and the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate who was neither the wife nor the daughter of a politician (Paula Hawkins, Florida, 1980) were also Mormon.
Sounds like women were given more respect and more opportunities to better themselves long before the feminist movement. Similar to Mormons' health law that forbids tobacco, long before scientists said it was bad...
And tithing is in the Bible too...
I'm not supporting all Mormons in their choices, because a lot do act "mightier than thou", but those who are down to earth and are working hard to live the way they know they should live are great people. "By their fruits ye shall know them."
jlmealer posted at 9:47 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.
SB 1070 is a good law. Most people do not realize that Arizona lw now gives illegal aliens a misdemeanor charge allowing them two more chances to get visas or attempt to become citizens WHEREAS the federal law makes them felons with no chance of ever becoming US citizens or visiting the USA.
It's SB 1041 that is wholly unconstitutional to Arizona's Constitution that is... We have one other jobs plan, let's see how Gov Brewer and the state accept a NO COST solution!
http://mealercompanies.com/?p=708
az2008 posted at 10:37 pm on Mon, Jun 6, 2011.
jlmealer, your posts don't make sense. Arizona law can't give an illegal alien "two more chances to get visas or naturalize." The federal government issues visas and naturalization oaths.
Naturalization depends upon being in the country for a length of time on an immigration visa (green card, as opposed to an H1B temp worker, etc.). And, all visas (immigration or not) require that you have not overstayed a previous visa in the past 10 years. Being in the country llegally constitutes overstaying a visa (and worse).
Your comment is like saying Arizona grants illegal aliens unicorns and mermaids. That's terrific, except for the small fact they don't exist.
az2008 posted at 12:13 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
I support 1070 (and go further to say we should fix our citizenship-by-birth convention which makes us unique among industrialized nations).
But, something seems creepy about enforcing laws through donation. It bypasses representative democracy (which arises through budget compromises, etc.) and makes enforcement of a law more populist. Even opening it up to external populist forces (how many out-of-state donors were there)?
I think people would see this more if the shoe were on the other foot. Let's say we have a Hispanic governor fighting federal intrusion into so-called "sanctuary" cities. Let's say she established a fund for people (mostly Hispanics, including Hispanics in Mexico) to donate to the fight. That would give that particular exercise of public power far more amplitude than it would have received if left to the state's democratic (representative) exercise of public power (balancing how to spend the budget, which derived from residents).
I hate to score a point for the anti-1070 crowd. I have little respect for them. But, something seems wrong about this. I think it's one of those things like the War on Drugs and RICO which look good until the unintended consequences arise.
Mark my words.
AmericanPatriot posted at 8:36 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
az2008, there are well funded, open border, amnesty groups fighting Arizona's SB1070 law. Cities and states cannot afford to fight these well funded groups whenever we try to pass a law on immigration. The cost of litigation scares municipalities into submission. The reason we decided to go this route was so that we could continue the fight without anyone being able to use the argument that we we're costing the state too much money going after a losing battle. Of course a few million bucks is chicken feed compared to the possible savings we could have as a result of full implementation of SB1070, but still they could have used that argument effectively on a public that sees a few million bucks as a small fortune.
Here's an interesting article about a town that was in the early fight to do something about illegal immigration problems they were facing that you might like to know about.
Court tosses ruling against Hazleton immigration law [beam]
Hazleton won a second chance to defend its immigration law, courtesy of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia to reconsider Hazleton's law, which was struck down in 2007.
"It's a do-over in the Third Circuit," said Kris Kobach, the attorney for Hazleton. "We re-brief it, re-argue it and have a helpful Supreme Court decision in our hip pocket."
Kobach referred to a decision on May 26 in a case about an Arizona law.
In the Arizona case, known as U.S. Chamber of Commerce versus Whiting, the Supreme Court upheld a law revoking the business licenses for companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
Hazleton's law, which was enacted in 2006 but never took effect because of the court challenge, contains nearly the same employment provisions as Arizona's law.
The Arizona decision, Kobach said, "put Hazleton on very strong ground" for the employment provision.
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, who backed the law when he was mayor of Hazleton, said the order shows the Third Circuit's ruling directly conflicted with the Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona case.
"This is great news for the City of Hazleton and all municipalities in cities and states trying to cope with the burden of illegal immigration," Barletta said. "This certainly is not good news for those that support illegal immigration."
So you can clearly see just how important the Arizona decision was Dale. lol
AmericanPatriot posted at 8:49 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
“Alabama is now the new No. 1 state for immigration enforcement,” said Kris Kobach, a constitutional lawyer who is secretary of state in Kansas. He has helped write many state bills to curtail illegal immigration, including Alabama’s.
The Alabama bill includes a provision similar to one that stirred controversy in Arizona, authorizing state and local police officers to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop based on a “reasonable suspicion” the person is an illegal immigrant. Federal courts have suspended most of that Arizona law.
Alabama’s bill goes beyond Arizona’s. It bars illegal immigrants from enrolling in any public college after high school. It obliges public schools to determine the immigration status of all students, requiring parents of foreign-born students to report the immigration status of their children.
The bill requires Alabama’s public schools to publish figures on the number of immigrants — both legal and illegal — who are enrolled and on any costs associated with the education of illegal immigrant children.
The bill, known as H.B. 56, also makes it a crime to knowingly rent housing to an illegal immigrant. It bars businesses from taking tax deductions on wages paid to unauthorized immigrants.
“This is a jobs-creation bill for Americans,” said Representative Micky Hammon, a Republican who was a chief sponsor of the bill. “We really want to prevent illegal immigrants from coming to Alabama and to prevent those who are here from putting down roots,” he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/us/04immig.html?_r=1
AmericanPatriot posted at 9:03 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
ACLU expected to challenge Alabama immigration law.
The American Civil Liberties Union blasted the immigration bill passed Thursday by the Alabama Legislature, saying it discriminates against criminal invaders who sneak into our country," and announced plans to challenge it in court.
"It's an outrageous throwback to the pre-civil rights era, and we call on Governor (Robert) Bentley to veto this deeply misguided bill," Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, told The Associated Press. "The Alabama Legislature has invited rank discrimination into criminal's everyday lives."
Jared Shepherd, Law Fellow of the ACLU of Alabama, agreed.
"This law undermines our core American values of fairness and equality and will make the rampant criminal profiling of Criminals that is already going on in Alabama that much worse, threatening the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike," Shepherd said on the ACLU of Alabama website. "Requiring police to demand papers from criminals on the street is a tactic commonly associated with totalitarian regimes, not robust democracies."
Kerry Rich, R-Albertville, called the ACLU's argument "ridiculous" and "idiotic."
"As far as the ACLU is concerned, I'm not surprised they're challenging this new bill," Rich said. "This is the same group of people that will go to court and try to defend someone that puts out the smuttiest, nastiest, slimiest porno that you could ever imagine. They'll protect that, yet they'll go to court at the same time and try to deny a child who's a valedictorian from saying a prayer during a high school ceremony."
AmericanPatriot posted at 9:07 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
We do live in interesting times.
On March 7, 2011, the police chief in Huron, South Dakota, was placed on administrative leave after testifying before a state senate committee about local businesses who regularly employ illegal aliens.
Chief Schmitt told the legislators: “We have confidential informants that have been inside both facilities for a length of time and they tell us that if you make application there and you don't have any documentation, documentation will be provided for you so that you can have gainful employment with them.”
Schmitt went before the committee to speak in favor of a bill that would have made it a state crime to hire illegal aliens.
A few hours after he testified, the city of Huron placed Chief Schmitt on leave.
On March 31, still on suspension, Chief Schmitt resigned after 32 years in law enforcement, with 11 of those years spent as Huron’s police chief.
Schmitt told KELOLAND News: “I had the opportunity to resign and take retirement or face a disciplinary hearing scheduled for this coming Monday. After considering things very carefully, I elected to tender my resignation and retire.”
AmericanPatriot posted at 9:12 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
Fewer Jobs, More Imported (Poverty-Class) Workers
By James R. Edwards Jr., June 6, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office has updated a report on the foreign-born labor force in the United States. It uses census data from 2009. Meanwhile, the U.S. jobs outlook has weakened.
A few nuggets from the CBO report:
* Some 38 percent of the 39 million foreign-born residents in 2009 came from Mexico and Central America.
* In 2009, the foreign-born official unemployment rate, 9.1 percent, stood above the 7.8 percent unemployment rate of the native-born. For Mexican and Central American immigrants, unemployment was 11.1 percent.
* In contrast to just 8 percent of native-born Americans, 56 percent of Mexican and Central American immigrants have not completed high school.
* Median wages of Mexican and Central American immigrants were $22,000; native-born Americans earned median wages of $45,000.
The inescapable fact: It makes no sense to continue to flood the U.S. labor pool by importing foreigners. A naturally tighter labor market generally works better for everyone. It creates a "virtuous circle" economy characterized by steadily higher wages, worker productivity gains, higher company profits, and a strengthening middle class.
Accuracy posted at 10:19 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
The US Supreme Court upheld the Arizona law that imposes sanctions against businesses that hire illegal immigrants. So now Gov. Jan Brewer has chosen attorney Paul D. Clement as legal counsel for the appeal of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Brewer said the attorney has "an impeccable nationwide reputation for his expertise in appellate and constitutional litigation."
Arizona SB 1070, the most aggressive anti-immigrant law in the history of the US, went into effect on July 29th, 2010. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Az), who was appointed to take the place of Janet Napolitano (D-Az), signed the Arizona law which “Open Border” Napolitano had vetoed several times.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert also signed a new (Arizona-style) Utah immigration law and this year the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are suing to halt Utah’s law.
AmericanPatriot posted at 10:21 am on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
Alabama Legislature Strikes a Blow for Legal Americans
Posted on June 7, 2011 by Rachel Cohen
Alabama’s legislature has passed an Arizona style immigration bill which is now awaiting the signature of Governor Robert Bentley. The bill was passed on votes of 67-29 in the House and 25-7 in the Senate. The new law will allow for law enforcement to investigate the legal status of those they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally.
It will also make it a crime for an illegal alien to apply for a job in the state. The law will also require all employers to use E-Verify to establish the citizenship of all applicants. Sanctuary cities will be outlawed. Further it will make it a crime to transport and or harbor illegal aliens. And I like this one best of all. Any business twice convicted of hiring illegals will lose their business license.
Of course the American Civil Liberties Union is threatening to file suit if the governor signs the bill into law and this is an outrage. How dare an organization operating tax free in the United States assert that people who have crossed our borders illegally and are in fact invaders have any rights at all in our country, let alone any rights that supersede our rights as United States citizens to be secure in our property (jobs, economy, and tax dollars) against unlawful seizure, because in reality these thing are being seized by the illegals.
They are foreigners breaching our sovereignty and violating our laws, coming into our country and seizing our welfare, our food stamps, our housing, our jobs, and our future. And they are being assisted by insurgents that have been planted in our highest seats of power.
The list of states putting forth Arizona style legislation is growing day by day as Americans are showing their outrage at having their jobs and livelihood stolen during a time when our own people are going hungry in the streets and in tent cities.
These are natural born Americans who have worked all their lives and are now having to watch as people who cannot even speak their language swarm over our southern border and take everything they have worked for and paid into, as they, as legal citizens, are being denied the basic necessities of life in their country which is in fact their property.
I think we had better be watching real close when these ACLU cases come to trial as there will no doubt be an effort by the foreign insurgents in our government to stack the juries with their fifth column sympathizers.
I am glad to see the states finally taking action. I guess they are beginning to think about what could happen if they continue to ignore those who conquered this continent. I look forward to the day that every state has passed the Arizona style law and the traitors in our federal government are facing each and every one of us and our retaliation if they dare try to tell us, “No you can’t.”
Here is one for you Mr. Soetoro, “Yes we can seal our borders. Yes we can deport every illegal. Yes we can punish the rich corporations who are supporting this invasion. Yes we can declare that no one is coming here to work our jobs on visas. And yes we can enforce our rights as legal citizens of the United States.”
Accuracy posted at 12:22 pm on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
AmericanPatriot posted: “there are well funded, open border, amnesty groups fighting Arizona's SB1070 law. Cities and states cannot afford to fight these well funded groups whenever we try to pass a law on immigration.”
----------------------------------
And in Arizona, there is a group of liberal labor organizers, a former AFL-CIO state director, and the national liberal left who oppose Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law.
President Barack Obama and his U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law (SB 1070) actually alleges that by enforcing any anti-illegal immigration laws, Arizona law enforcement is violating the rights of (1) illegal aliens and (2) Hispanics. Making it an extremely personal target of Barack Obama, the Obama White House, and the Obama Justice Department.
More than 22 states are now considering versions of their own anti-illegal immigration law to be signed into law by their governors . . . and ready for Barack Obama and the ACLU to sue them.
NothingButTheTruth posted at 3:50 pm on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
Imagine that, sb1070 violating the rights of illegal aliens and Hispanics? This Obamanation thinks illegal aliens have more rights than American citizens? Well now isn't that a fine smelly pot of rotting fish soup. Drink up America, the fearless leader has spoken.
AmericanPatriot posted at 4:08 pm on Tue, Jun 7, 2011.
New Mexico rancher Larry Link murdered by illegal alien
Hidalgo County Sheriff Department has confirmed that New Mexico rancher, Larry Link, was murdered earlier today on his property.
Sources are reporting that the rancher was responding to an alleged- illegal alien on his property at Stein’s Ghost Town when the he was gunned-down. The murder took place on the southwest side of the state near the Arizona border on Interstate 10 at mile marker three.
The Hidalgo Sheriff’s Deputies responded to the scene, only to find the rancher had already died.
A Sheriff Department spokesperson said the investigation has been turned over to the New Mexico State Police, who are not releasing any further details.
But didn't nappy say the border was safer than ever?
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:05 am on Thu, Jun 16, 2011.
Geez Dale, how much money have you given to LA Raza to support ILLEGAL ALIENS?
It's not foolish trying to return rights to US citizens, and define "rights' of MILLIONS of INVADING FOREIGN NATIONALS.
Dale, when you point a finger at someone else, three are pointing back at you....