It is a rather stark declaration of what amounts to "executive nullification."

Say, wasn't there a clause in that oath about "...faithfully execut[ing] the laws ..."?

Your headline - and the rest of your post along with it - is wrong.

On Wednesday, when the judge ruled, it was a statute - not a law.

It didn't become a law until today, and the judge ruled yesterday. The judge barred portions of the statute from becoming law.

"Law Enforcement Officers Ordered Not To Enforce The Law is false. The statute was modified. Nobody was ordered to "not enforce the law." The judge barred portions of the statute from becoming law.

"Judge Bolton essentially ruled that Arizona could not enforce existing immigration law ..." is false. There is no Arizona immigration law that Arizona law enforcement cannot enforce. What happened is that portions of the statute were barred from becoming law.

You are correct in that Arizona cannot enforce federal immigration laws, but then that isn't what you said, or what you were writing about. You were writing about the new Arizona law.

"Specifically, Brewer struck down the provision in Arizona's controversial law requiring law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspects in cases..." is false. Portions of the law were not struck down, portions of the statute were barred from becoming law.

You see, the Arizona statute didn't become law until the day after the judge ruled.

Your headline, and the premise of your post stating that a law was prevented from being enforced, is false. 100% false. It wasn't a law until the day after the judge ruled.

The difference isn't minor. The "law" wasn't changed, the statute was.

You're protesting that a judge ruled that legal US residents cannot be required to carry papers, and that they have the freedom to assemble in public?!

I don't think I like your idea of America.

I find it funny that someone whose greatest foe is proper capitalization calls anyone "ignorant."

And a pet rock could do a better job than Obama has done. No, that's not hyperbole. If we had a president (and Congress) that did absolutely nothing after being inaugurated in 2008, this country would be far better off economically than it is now.

Anyway, back on point, the "undue burden" argument is very interesting, and I fully endorse it. After all, if it's an undue burden for the federal government to check the immigration status of everyone detained by Arizona's authorities, how much more of an undue burden is it to require the federal government ensures that every American citizen faithfully represents his entire economic activity for the year to the government, and pays the corresponding tax in accordance to a several thousand-page document? Clearly, the IRS is unconstitutional by this judge's reasoning. If it holds, I got no problem with that.

Gee look it's Whin\tney... must have a "health care radar to beeps him'her'IT awake so they can pimp the commercial bullshit.

Hey Raphael M... pulls his gold plated nit-pick card.

Law/Statute we get the drift you don't have to be so anal about it. Oh, and you're an undue burden.

Now on to a point or two:

Specifically, Brewer struck down the provision in Arizona's controversial law requiring law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of suspects in cases where there is probable cause to assume that they may be illegal aliens.

The Fed law doesn't require "reasonable suspicion" A Fed agent can ask any one at any time about theie immigration satus.

Secondly (listen-up Raphael M you want false here comes false)

Bolton based her ruling regarding harassment of legal aliens in part on her view SB1030 requires Arizona to determine the immigration status of every person arrested in the state.

That's patently FALSE, the statute requires reasonable suspicion to enter at that point in every encounter.

And BTW... this law/statute doesn't BAN/outlaw the asking of status - read the footnotes of her ruling - it just ban the requirement to ask.

individual policemen or city/county policemen as a group can if they so desire.

Ummm ... guys ... she didn't strike down the law. She issued an order to temporarily restrain enforcement of it pending the outcome of a court case.

Of course, she did this because she finds it likely the feds will prevail in the eventual suit, but that's another argument ...

"Susan Boltons infuriating ruling"

Liberal's and illegal's. Not much of a fine line there. I wonder how many of the prior Susan employ's?

While infuriating and many here wish to use it as a hammer against the current administration the fact is the other side of the political isle isn't much different.

Both political seem to need people who are not citizens of this country to vote them into office--mainly because I think the citizenry here in this country (or both sides of the political fence) are getting fed up with voting for them.

When you have to rely on votes from people who don't have the right to vote in order to get elected it is just a truly pathetic state we have reached.

914, it makes me wonder too. And if I was an enterprising young IRS agent looking to make my bones, I'd check into that and see if she's paying her "nanny taxes."

Let's see her enforce her ruling. Sheriff Joe basically told her to pound sand.

If you are an illegal in Arizona are you really going to think you are safe becasue of this ruling ?

No way ... they are packing up and leaving ...

The courts and Congress are not going to be able to solve this issue for the U.S. A prime example is the issue of slavery. Case after case, compromise after compromise in Congress attempted to make everyone happy BUT this was one of those issues where there was no compromise and couldn't be.

In our post 9/11 world there can be no compromise on the issue of border security. Unfort., were stuck between the Dem's, who see a huge potential voting block and the Repub's, whose big money donors like the slave wages they pay sans any gov't involvement which adds to their bottom line.

Another prob is that many states don't see the problem. The border states are over run and budgets are strapped, California is allready lost, yet for someone in North Dakota, it's just not much of an issue. I guess until some terrorist sneaks across and plants a WMD in some major urban area it will continue to be a problem for someone else.

Just curious. State, county and local authorities assist the feds in enforcing federal laws and cooperate with them on other matters all the time. Does that assistance also lay a burden on them, the feds, I mean? Should the states, counties and cities now stop helping the feds on everything else as well? Or just the immigration laws? And if so, why?

More of Barry's Bull credo. I am the King. You are pawn's. Do as I say.

Never thought i would say this to a sitting U.S. President but 'SCREW YOU" With all due respect.

James H is correct. "She issued an order to TEMPORARILY RESTRAIN enforcement of it pending the outcome of a court case."

Hate to upset Asshole (yesterdays comment), but the Arizona law hasn't been abolished, killed, negated or declared unconstitutional.

It's now headed for a full court hearing. No matter the outcome, it WILL go all the way to SCOTUS.

Our nation is run by outlaw unelected liberal activists judges and a war crinimal in the whiyehouse

You know, I think it places an undue burden on state and local authorities to enforce violations of copyright and anti-piracy laws, and report violators to the FBI. Maybe Pirate Bay and other file sharing and torrent sites could be allowed to set up shop in places like Arizona. Let's see how Shakira, Rage Against the Machine and all of the media-telecom companies that funded the Obama campaign like that.