SB 1070 Slugfest: Will Judge Susan Bolton Block 1070's "Papers Please" Section?

boumamediascrum.JPG
Snell & Wilmer honcho John Bouma, outside the federal courthouse in Phoenix

See also: SB 1070 Oral Arguments on "Papers Please" Section Scheduled for August 21
See also: ACLU Seeks New Injunction on "Papers Please" Portion of SB 1070
See also: SB 1070, SCOTUS, Friendly House, and a Ray of Hope
See also: Russell Pearce's Falsehoods, Inaccuracies and Inventions on Channel 12's Sunday Square-Off
See also: Russell Pearce Scores Another Win Against Hispanics, Most Local Activists Are No-Shows, Only Daniel Patterson Shines

That John Bouma has such a way with words.

During oral arguments Tuesday in federal court over the "papers please" portion of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070, Bouma, chairman of the powerhouse law firm Snell & Wilmer, offered sometimes racially-charged arguments as to why section 2(b) should not be enjoined by Judge Susan R. Bolton.

Bouma conceded that Latinos and Mexican nationals -- whether here legally or not -- will be disproportionately affected by the implementation of 2(b), which requires cops to check immigration status during all lawful stops, if there's reasonable suspicion that the individual is undocumented.

But, he awkwardly seemed to be contending, like, so what?

"Who else is coming across the border like Hispanics?" asked Bouma rhetorically, his voice rising in apparent frustration.

He cited precedents having to do with the disproportionate impact of certain laws on Muslims, and on African-Americans.

"[T]here's a much higher proportion of blacks than anybody else [doing crack cocaine]," observed Bouma, in a spurt of weirdness.

(Note: See update below.)

Naturally, such inflammatory talk set reporters' pens in the court scribbling. Only thing Bouma could have done for an encore is bust out into a Don Rickles-esque floor show, featuring a crass parade of Irish, Jewish, and Polish jokes.

Yeah, I know Bouma was referencing federal court cases having to do with drug laws, but to say this was inartfully done is an understatement. Especially when Bouma is supposed to be defending his client -- the State of Arizona -- from the plaintiffs' claim in Valle del Sol v. Whiting that 1070 was motivated, in part, by ethnic and racial animus.

(I know, no duh, eh? But play along. What's painfully obvious still has to be demonstrated in court.)

That's part of the plaintiffs' challenge to 2(b) on Fourth and 14th amendment grounds, challenges not made before the U.S. Supreme Court in June, when the majority upheld three of Bolton's injunctions on the grounds that federal immigration law preempts state efforts to regulate immigration.

However, the Supremes disagreed with Bolton's injunction on 2(b).

At issue is whether Bolton will lift the injunction on 2(b) or let it stand for reasons other than preemption. The judge issued her initial injunctions two years ago, on July 28, 2010, one day before 1070 was scheduled to go into effect. Since then, two other provisions dealing with day-laborers have been enjoined.

The plaintiffs are also seeking enjoinment of an SB 1070 provision making the "unlawful transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding of unlawful aliens" a state crime. (A.R.S. 13-2929).

Two rulings Monday by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding 1070 copycat laws in Alabama and Georgia offered a mixed bag for the parties in Valle del Sol.

While language similar to the harboring provision in 1070 remained enjoined, injunctions on "papers please" provisions were lifted. The 11th Circuit cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that section 2(b) of 1070 was not preempted by federal law.

Preemption was the constitutional issue at hand for the 11th Circuit, as was the case in Bolton's first set of injunctions in 2010. The constitutional issues for Bolton this time around are different in regards to 2(b).

KarenTumlin.JPG
Karen Tumlin, fighting for the plaintiffs in Valle del Sol v. Whiting

Still, Bolton asked Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center if the plaintiffs' argument was "weakened" by the 11th Circuit's decision on Monday. Tumlin said no, that the 11th Circuit did not have before it "the record that there is here."

Tumlin argued that there was "substantial evidence" that 2(b) violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. She described 1070 as being "infected" by "discriminatory intent" as evidenced from the statements and lies told by legislators regarding 1070's passage, as well as the now-infamous Pearce e-mails.

The judge wondered if the plaintiffs were trying to argue that the majorities of the state House and Senate had discriminatory intent in passing 1070. If not, how many people would it take to demonstrate 1070's discriminatory intent?

Tumlin replied that the plaintiffs merely had to show race was a "motivating factor" in the passage of the law.

"If the plaintiffs can prove that [race] played a motivating factor," Tumlin declared, "then [1070] must be enjoined."

During 1070's passage, she noted, legislators used false and misleading information and racially coded language, while conflating undocumented immigrants with all Mexican nationals and Hispanics.

Indeed, Tumlin's argument went to the nexus of what was behind 1070 from jump, the bigotry and racism that elected leaders from Governor Jan Brewer on down exploited for political gain.

As for the Fourth Amendment violations, the plaintiffs offered a sworn declaration from Phoenix 19 year-old Hugo Carrillo Escobedo citizen of Mexico, Arizona resident, and full time high-school student in the Valley.

On July 21, he was pulled over by Phoenix police officers for "squealing tires," and his vehicle was impounded because he was driving without a license.

Escobedo was allowed to leave, but later a Phoenix cop contacted him by phone, then went to his house, telling him he would have to be turned in to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because, supposedly, 1070 had gone into effect, and the cop feared losing his job for not following the new law.

But section 2(b) of 1070 has not gone into effect. The original injunction stands. Nevertheless, the young man was transported to ICE, which cut him loose after holding him for eight hours. Subsequently, the criminal charge he received for not having I.D. was dropped.

Tumlin's point was that this and other proffered examples demonstrated the deleterious effect 1070 would inevitably have.

She also noted statements by various law enforcement officials, including Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, who was present as one of the defendants, that 1070's 2(b) would be enforced so as to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of those being held.

My Voice Nation Help
67 comments
utah4
utah4

I do hope, goldengate that you aren't a Christian.

 

Because if you are, you seem to have missed one of Christianity's most fundamental beliefs: which is never, ever, to visit the sins of the fathers upon his kids.

 

 

 

 

 

 

openupthatgoldengate
openupthatgoldengate

we need to get rid of these illegals before they drop any anchor babies. ideally, we send them home to mexico, but short of that, california has rolled out the red carpet for them and we should drive them west.

cargonz13
cargonz13

seriously???  This is the way you want to stretch this way out of proportion...what a fucking moron...you are inbred aren't you??...for one thing nothing is free and another thing Hispanics aren't idiots like you inbred fools are...you should really sit back and read your posts and listen to how stupid you sound...WOW!!

robert_graham
robert_graham

Next illegal aliens will argue that they should not have to show ID to cash checks because it might inconvenience them.  But their real motive would be so that they can get away with cashing stolen checks.  Then they will sue to get free houses, free health insurance, free cars, free groceries, fee cell phones and more.  What fucking idiots you all are.  Just show your fucking papers if you are stopped and if you are here legally you have nothing to worry about.  But if you are here illegally you need to face the music.

robert_graham
robert_graham

The only reason anybody would want papers please blocked is because they want to be able to avoid detection and not have to answer to law enforcement for being here illegally.  Nobody has the right to break the law. 

Mary Doe
Mary Doe

No, Gina, the point is it should have been another way around even to make it to 'practical.' And it still wouldn't make it legal.

Mary Doe
Mary Doe

Gina. The majority of undocumented and improperly documented arrive by air travel. But it's not even the point.

Gina Wilkinson-Montague
Gina Wilkinson-Montague

'disproportionately affected'? I'd say it will affect them in a very proportionate manner, given that our illegal immigration problem stems almost exclusively from south of the border.

cargonz13
cargonz13

Jackassjoearpaiofan...If judge Bolton does not stop this portion of this bill and I get pulled over and treated like they treat migrants or people suspected of being a migrant I for one will be taking your tax dollars in the way of a lawsuit...I'll sue the fuck out of MCSO and if you think about it I probably won't be the only one suing...its people like you and this idiotic way of thinking that is fucking up this once great state...you asshole are all about hate and are concentrating on the wrong things....  

robert_graham
robert_graham

Sorry but Bolton would be extremely stupid if she blocks "show me your papers".  It would be a political death-sentence for her if she does.  There is nothing wrong with "show me your papers".  Activists claim that it targets people with "brown skin" but police cannot target something that does not exist such as people that have white, yellow or black skin.  And activists claim that people would be subject to lengthy detentions???  Why in the fuck do they think Hispanics should be treated differently that other people????  If I am stopped by police there is no limit on how long I can be detained while they run my license so why should Hispanics be treated differently????????  Whether it takes police three minutes or three hours to verify a person's legal status, so be it.  And regarding those so-called e-mails that have surfaced that the ACLU claims to have proving the law is racially motivated, they can't be used because they weren't introduced in the beginning and truly do not indicate that the law was racially motivated at all.  Honestly though, any e-mails that the ACLU claims to have were fabricated in their last minute effort to discredit the law.

 

But if Bolton does block the law it will be resent back to the Supreme Court and being that activists cannot legitimately show wrongdoing, the provision would be reaffirmed by the Supreme Court with no further grounds for appeal.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 I assume you are talking to me aren't you. But it does you people do think that you are entitled to everything.

 

(1) If you sneak into a movie theater without paying do you think you should be able to stay and watch the movie anyway?

 

YES OR NO?

 

(2) If you shoplift food from a store and you are not caught before you leave the store do you think you should have the right to keep what you stole?

 

YES OR NO?

 

(3) If you manage to swim across the river from Mexico into the United States and avoid detection do you think that you have the right to stay here because you were not caught entering the United States?

 

YES OR NO?

 

If you answered yes to any of these questions you are an idiot.  The correct answers are NO.

Flyer9753
Flyer9753 topcommenter

 @JoeArpaioFan I have a question for you.

 

How much does Joe Arpaio or whoever it is, pay you?

 

Not trying to make a joke or anything like that and not meaning it as a slam but I see you on here posting at all hours, multiple times per hour, all day, etc... You must be getting paid to spend as much time as you do on here posting

rickthepr1ck
rickthepr1ck

@JoeArpaioFan your a queer, so nothing you say matters. yo mama is giving head in hell

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @JoeArpaioFan What don't you understand about "I was born and raised in Arizona" you inbred piece of shit...don't you have better things to do like dance around in your sheriff Jackass pink undies??

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 Okay so you are a citizen. If you get pulled over why would you care if you are asked about your immigration status? Simply show the cop your drivers license and you should be good to go.  But those who are not here illegally cannot show a cop a drivers license (unless it was fraudulently obtained which I'm sure most illegals have) or tell the cop what their SSN is so obviously the police have the right and duty to investigate just like they would if they pulled me over and I don't have a drivers license.  You think illegal aliens should get a free pass that lets them avoid scrutiny and that is not how the law works.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 So what you are saying is that every person who gets stopped for being a suspected drunk driver who is not should sue the police department for that traffic stop?  Of if a bank robbery just happened at a bank you were in and police suspect you might be the robber but you are not, you have the right to sue the police if you are questioned about that robbery even though you were later let go when it was determined that you had nothing to do with the heist?  If you are a legal migrant and you are pulled over and you have the necessary documentation to prove that you are here legally you should have nothing to worry about so what's your fucking problem?  But if you get pulled over and give the police a hard time purposely leading them to believe you are an illegal just to be able to sue, you should be arrested.  As with any crime, police have the duty to investigate and those who are pulled over without papers or a drivers license or a social security card deserve to be questioned as to their legal status no matter who pulls them over!  Because our laws are clear in that it is illegal to be here illegally, you have no right to complain.  You seem to be a real lowlife who is out to manipulate our rule of law, and if you don't like our laws then get the fuck out of Arizona. 

TruConserv
TruConserv

 @JoeArpaioFan You seemingly don't understand the law.

 

It is not that EVERYONE gets the Paper's Please treatment; instead, it's that only those who look like illegal immigrants get the the extra review.

 

That's the racial profiling aspect. How do you look at someone and determine they are suspicious of being an illegal? Why, skin color of course.

 

As written and as implemented, this law only impacts those US citizens who LOOK like illegals - those who are brown - while leaving all other races untouched.

 

That's the issue, how did you miss that? Do you even read these articles, the law, the court filings?

Lone-Wolf
Lone-Wolf

 @JoeArpaioFan You might want to the Libertarians. They (as a majority white political group) have a problem with "show me your papers".

I don't think Bolton really cares if this is "political suicide". She is fully aware of what shet is a correct and moral decision. And she will certainly go down in history and remembered as a Judge who did the right thing, by maintaining "checks and balance" in state controlled by those who wish do away with personal responsibility and accountability.

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

 @JoeArpaioFan JAF shows his true face. He's not the dumbass teen he wants you to think he is. Wouldn't be surprised if his IP address goes straight to the MCSO. And that pic is fake. Can Lemons check the IP?

 

And "political death-sentence"? She's appointed for life, doofus. Just ask Lisa Allen.

 

 

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @JoeArpaioFan Ok so your main man Joe is killing people in jail that is a crime...shouldn't he be in jail??...your main man Joe misspent 100 million dollars of tax money...shouldn't he be in jail??...your main man Joe has been violating civil rights for years...shouldn't he have been removed by now??...I could go on and on until your stupid ass understands if you want...this asshole is the biggest law breaker in Maricopa county the only difference is he has a badge and stupid ass supporters like you....Little bitch!!!...PS I'm done with you and your ignorance so don't even respond to this one...

narizona
narizona

Hey Flyer9753, He's not getting paid by joe .......he is joe ,he writes just like he talks ......too bad being stupid isn't a crime he would have several felonies........ .never makes any sense at all just .....I love joe blow the payaso .....A HOLE .!

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 I don't care if you were born here or not. If you don't like ours laws and policies then leave.  Nobody is forcing you to stay.

jjon3
jjon3

 @JoeArpaioFan  @cargonz13

 

 

You know and I know that the majority of time your friend deputies will stop or pull over any ethnic person other than white for no apparent reason but fabricate a lawful story just to make themselves appear “ on the job”.  Unfortunately, Hispanics and Mexicans are the majority because of their skin tone and verbal ability.  So what if they don’t have a driver license or ID verification of citizenship, they’re not stopping you from eating, working, obtaining an education, etc.   If you’re not in law enforcement, you need to live your life and let them live theirs. 

jjon3
jjon3

 @JoeArpaioFan

 You  need to STOP making shit up.  Maybe this is  the reason why your ass is fucking crazy now.  Whatever happen, if it happen, or when it happens, deal with it at that time.  It's just totally ridiculous the shit your ass type and its all if, if, if.  Deal with the real world and not your made believe one.

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @JoeArpaioFan One more thing is I was born and raised here in Arizona and it wasn't till you inbred fuckers started moving here did this way thinking come in...I'd bet your not a Az native...I'd bet your mom and dad are brother and sister and that your family tree is a wreath...you and your KKK way of thinking needs to back to where you came from...

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @JoeArpaioFan My fucking problem is that there is no drunk drivers and no robberies in my statement and you know as well as the rest of Arizonans that MCSO pulls people over that are brown in there so called "crime suppression sweeps" and if your like the rest of the memory challenged monkey here in Arizona you would have remembered the verbiage that your hero Jackass Joe used to use in the interviews when he first start them...he used to to get on tv and use words like illegals and immigrants...but your one of those people that refuse to see the truth...if you think its right to think this way then something is wrong with you too...if you think its ok for people to die in 4th ave jail at the hands of MCSO thugs then something is wrong with you...if you think its alright to have 2000+ lawsuits against MCSO something is wrong with you...I can go on for ever with this SHIT...fuck you and fuck your hero... 

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

 @JoeArpaioFan  @cargonz13 slippery slope, JAF. today it's the "illegals" you don't care about, and the legal Hispanics. what if the cops had direct access to ur tax returns and they didn't like the way u filled things out? what about having to carry a national ID w/you everywhere, with all of your tax and credit info. you'd be singing a different tune then, no matter what ur reply, bucko

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @Lone-Wolf No, deep down inside she should know now that "show me your papers" is in fact legitimate.  But if she blocks it there would be serious legal repercussions over that decision.  The matter would be returned back to the Supreme Court and again it would surely be reaffirmed with no further appeal allowed.  The only reason she invalidated SB 1070 in the first place is because she has several illegal aliens cleaning her house that she wants to protect.

narizona
narizona

 @GreenHornet  @JoeArpaioFan I'm telling you .......I think that jaf .Is our pie hole,acts just like talks just like thinks just like that says a lot .............starved for attention senile OLD BASTURD, and I do believe he not only swallows but goes after the peanuts to!

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @GreenHornet Green Hornet, you don't like the fact that I tell you how it is?  My IP address is not part of MCSO or any other police agency and you should be glad I am not because if I were you'd be in for a rude awakening you would not like.  Why ask Steven Lemons for help?  The only think he could tell you is that my IP address belongs to Cox.net.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 Joe isn't killing anybody in jail, they are killing themselves and all I can say is good riddance to all of them.  It's a fact of life that if you struggle with police they have every right to control you any way they see fit even if it means tasering.  It's not police's fault if you are not taser-toleratnt.  Those who die by tasers should consider those risks before they become unruly.

 

And since when is it a violation of civil rights to keep somebody in jail if they violated the law?  It is not!

 

The real little bitch is you because all you want is to be able to commit crimes and not be punished for them.  Well you are sadly mistaken.

 

You are just a dumb ass ghetto mouth Mexican and you belong in prison.  I am done with you too you lowlife piece of shit.

TruConserv
TruConserv

 @JoeArpaioFan  @jjon3  @cargonz13 Dear Child, if that were true, there would be no lawsuit. 

 

The issue here is that the police have been making pretextual stops designed to further an illegal racial profiling scheme.

 

What part of illegal don't you understand?

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @jjon3  @cargonz13 Do you call running a stop sign, speeding or driving an unregistered vehicle not a reason for police to pull people over? Police don't pull people over unless the law was broken. So are you saying that just because I'm not in law enforcement should I also ignore somebody if I see them breaking into a neighbors house?  Just because I am not in law enforcement doesn't mean that I should leave this issue alone because it does affect me.  Illegal immigration affects everybody.

narizona
narizona

Out to tarnish ? .I think he's out to polish all of mcso'sgerman helmets.I hear he swallows.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @sickened Excuse me what what do you mean that I threaten?  If you call telling facts then you have a distorted sense of reality.  But tell me specifically what do you mean by I threaten people?

sickened
sickened

 @JoeArpaioFan But to be fair, I fucking love you... you make such elegant arguments against your own positions, that I suspect you're secretly out to tarnish the MCSO's supporters. Keep up the good work. 

sickened
sickened

 @JoeArpaioFan I've seen you threaten, like, a dozen people on these comment boards, which I'm pretty sure is against the law. 

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @JoeArpaioFan That shows how ignorant you are...I've never ever been in jail, and my hostility comes because of dumb asses like you and your stupid opinion...If I ever were there in tent city and you were there at the same time I would make you my bitch and prostitute you out for anything I could get...and if you want to go as far as talking about someone shooting me...you got some balls??...I'll give you my address if you do and we'll can see whats what bitch...bring it...

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @cargonz13 I would never end up in Tent City because I do not break the law but if I did that is where I would deserve to go.  Because you are such a hostile person against our laws I can only assume that you have been to Tent City and I must say that you deserved it and should still be there.  It wouldn't surprise me if you have done robberies, home invasions and other violent crimes in your past.  If you have it is just too bad that you weren't shot dead by one of your victims.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @jjon3 Please then tell me what part about our laws don't you understand and I will explain further.

jjon3
jjon3

I don’t believe everything I read and neither should you.  What is defined by law is not the characterization you quote in your scenarios unless you can add some merit to your statements.  Other than that, you’re just mouthing off bullshit.

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @jjon3 I am not making things up. I am quoting exactly what is defined by law.  Why do you have a problem understanding that?

cargonz13
cargonz13

 @jjon3  @JoeArpaioFan He's just some inbred moron that doesn't know any better...he would get the idea if he were to spend a summer in tent city...I think there is something wrong with anyone that looks up to Jackass Joe and this moron joearpaiofan is no exception...what a fool he really believes Joe and his bullshit...wow

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @GreenHornet Ha ha. Go ahead. In fact I bet you have illegal aliens sucking your dick.  Sue me bitch.

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

 @JoeArpaioFan "The only reason she invalidated SB 1070 in the first place is because she has several illegal aliens cleaning her house that she wants to protect." Sounds lawsuit worthy to me. Hey Bolton, sue his ass for defamation, then we can get his IP. 

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

 @JoeArpaioFan ur hilarious, buster brown. how many times a day do u have to shave between your eyebrows?

robert_graham
robert_graham

 @GreenHornet You better be shaking in your boots you fucking idiot.  I suppose that you think illegal aliens deserve everything given to them free on a silver platter, huh?

GreenHornet
GreenHornet

"you'd be in for a rude awakening you would not like" ooh, I'm shakin in my boots, Oswald. do tell.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Home

Loading...