Immigration Ruling

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has ruled that the federal government does have an argument- that the federal government immigration enforcement trumps the state law. 

Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday's decision "a bump in the road" and vowed to appeal. The key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted that the state would ultimately win the case.

Click title of this post for full article.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places - a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

I am aware of precedents where the federal law trumps state law. The problem here is that the federal government has done nothing to help states with illegal immigration. They have turned a blind eye to the problems that are being faced with a high influx of illegals.

How can the courts rule against what the people have voted on? There is nothing illegal about it, considering it's already the law of the land. This is the judiciary branch trying to legislate from the bench.You cannot make laws from the bench.

Even if the federal government wins, it's the locals that are ultimately the ones that will be expected to enforce the law. So, how can the federal government complain about a state wanting to do what should be done already? There is no logic here.