Obama to weigh in on Arizona’s illegal labor law

Today’s Arizona Daily Star carries a McClatchy News Service article regarding a potential U.S. Supreme Court challenge to Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act, a law that holds employers responsible for knowingly hiring illegal aliens. The law  (HB 2779) also requires Arizona employers participate in the electronic employee verification E-Verify program.

Seeing Red AZ has previously written about legal efforts of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of illegal labor profiteers, Hispanic rights groups and other leftist interests such as the ACLU –  to overturn Arizona’s Fair and Legal Employment Act commonly known as the “Employer Sanctions” law — at least in part to prevent the successful measure from expanding nationally.

Yesterday, the high court asked the administration for its views to a challenge to the Arizona law, now known as Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the law that was signed by former Arizona Governor, Democrat Janet Napolitano. Adding to the discomfiture, Napolitano now works for the Obama administration as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Sheriff Arpaio wins federal court victory against Department of Justice

The following article was in today’s daily, but tucked in with other one-column reports on page 3 of section B, under the easy-to-miss header Around Arizona. It was not available online:

U. S. District Judge G. Murray Snow this week barred the Department of Justice from participating in depositions related to a racial profiling case against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

The Sheriff’s Office pointed to Snow’s decision as a victory and sheriff’s officials believe it bolsters their assertion that the Justice Department, which has an  ongoing civil-rights investigation into Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office, is using “back door” methods to gain information.  Sheriff’s officials have accused Justice Department investigators of using Department of Homeland Security employees to gather information for the investigation and attempting to gain entry to a press conference without identifying themselves.

The Justice department does not comment on ongoing investigations.

Placement, it appears, is everything. When issuing the nearly daily scathing assaults on Sheriff Joe Arpaio, they merit Page One, above-the-fold, coverage in the Arizona Republic. When the sheriff wins a court victory, the ever-so playful newspaper takes us on a game of hide and seek.

We don’t want to play.  What we do want is straight, unbiased news reporting — which is likely too much to hope for, but the spirit of optimism lives and breathes.

Justices Scalia, Breyer to discuss Constitution in Arizona

The good news:  ”A Conversation on the Constitution: Principles of Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation,” a discussion between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer, takes place Monday, Oct. 26 at 11:30 a.m. at the Leo Rich Theatre in Tucson.

 The bad news:  Tickets are no longer available to the public.

However, the discussion will broadcast live on PBS World, the 24-hour PBS channel from Arizona Public Media. Southern Arizona residents can access PBS World on digital broadcast Channel 27-3, Cox Channel 83 and Comcast Channel 203. The event also will be webcast live on the Arizona Public Media Web site.

Justice Antonin Scalia was appointed to the U. S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan.

Justice Stephen Breyer was a Clinton appointee.

Bios courtesy of Cornell University law School.

Additional information on the event is available here at UA News.

Judge Oberbillig rules that Sheriff is overbilling

Ruling in favor of the ACLU, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig says the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office cannot compel jail inmates to prepay the cost of being transported to a clinic to obtain an abortion.

Oberbillig ruled that the issue was covered by a 2005 injunction against the Sheriff’s Office in which it required a court order to transport an inmate to an abortion clinic.

The Sheriff’s Office instituted a policy that inmates must prepay $300 to $600 in transport and security costs and could obtain a court order to get a waiver of that prepayment.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona argued that the prepayment created another obstacle to a woman’s right to obtain a “timely abortion” under the U.S. Constitution. Neither the judge nor the ACLU disputed the sheriff’s right to obtain a reimbursement, according to a report by ABC 15.

And try as we might, we were unable to locate the words “timely abortion” in the U.S. Constitution.

Brigitte Amiri, a New York-based ACLU attorney, claimed the delays placed the health of female inmates in danger.  No word from Ms. Amiri about the health of the pre-born human infants.

An attorney for Sheriff Joe Arpaio says the office would likely appeal the ruling.

It’s good to have friends in high places

City Hall reporter Scott Wong gives the lowdown on the Valley’s newest power couple: Gates & Gates.

Remake my mud home for “civility” and the lessening of rights

The O’Connor House Project is the latest venture of retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Sandra O’Connor. Be aware, it is not as benign as it sounds. Your first clue is the Republic’s resident leftist editorialist Linda Valdez also touts the project.

Far more than refurbishing the old “mud-adobe home” that “she helped build,” O’Connor is intent on repairing, reforming  and reconfiguring state government.  Indeed, as a first step, she wants to restructure the line of ascension to the governor’s office, opting for a lieutenant governor.  She and her group are hoping to get measures on the ballot as early as next year to accomplish their aims.

Republic columnist Robert Robb weighed in on this issue last month. His article in the newspaper was titled Arizona doesn’t need lieutenant governor. You will see it here with a less decisive headline incorporating the word “kibitzing,” indicating meddlesome advice. He might work for them, but he ain’t of their blood, if you get the drift.

The conservative National Review Online’s Matthew Franck treated the former justice none-too-kindly here  and here.

One of the left-leaning court appointments made by Republican presidents, the National Abortion Federation enthusiastically devoted a page to the O’Connor Legacy.

She recently expressed disappointment that some of her ruling have been “dismantled” by the current court. “What would you feel?” O’Connor asked. “If you think you’ve been helpful, and then it’s dismantled, you think, ‘Oh, dear.’ But life goes on. It’s not always positive.”

So now O’Connor, entering her eighth decade and rooting around for a meaty issue, is concentrating on revamping her home state. 

Remedies include allegedly “nonpartisan” legislative races akin to the deceit we deal with on the city council and mayoral level and taking away the vote of the people by turning offices such as state treasurer, superintendent of public instruction and mine inspector into gubernatorial appointments. Under the guise of “Home Rule” this issue has reared its not-so-pretty head in the past on the county level, making many county offices appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

All of those interested in giving up your Constitutional rights and ability to vote, raise your hands.

O’Connor denounces more conservative court, regrets her rulings “dismantled”

As so often happens, presidents can get snookered when making appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Some of the most liberal justices were appointed by Republicans. Earl Warren, was nominated by Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower — who later was reputed to remark that nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat was “The biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made.” Reliable liberal Justice John Paul Stevens still on the bench at age 89, was a Gerald Ford appointee. And Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy, a leading proponent of the use of foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution.

In honoring his campaign commitment to appoint the first woman to the high court, Ronald Reagan also gave us Justice Sandra O’Connor, who reveled in being the often disappointing “swing vote.”

After her nomination, a Washington Post headline proclaimed: “Reagan choice for court decried by conservatives but acclaimed by liberals.”

O’Connor played a most significant  role on the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. In both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, O’Connor’s single vote in support of abortion ensured the survival of Roe v. Wade.

She voted to uphold the constitutionality of the devastating McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, and found a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas. And along with her leftist colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg, O’Connor has, like Kennedy, been a vigorous defender of citing foreign laws in U.S. judicial decisions.  Here is her speech on legal globalization given at the Southern Center for International Studies.

In celebrating Roe v. Wade, the National Abortion Federation enthusiastically devoted a lengthy tribute to the O’Connor Legacy.

A political animal, O’Connor was elected to the Arizona state senate, and later (prior to the current system of judicial selection) campaigned, ran and won a seat on the Maricopa County Superior Court as a Republican. But she held enough attraction for liberal Democrat Bruce Babbitt, that the then-governor appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals. That fact alone should have given President Reagan pause.

Now the former justice appears on the pages of USA Today criticizing the fact that some of rulings are being “dismantled.”

And, O’Connor has recently decided the structure of Arizona’s government needs an overhaul and is forming a group to review the currently elected offices she believes should be appointed and the massive reconfiguration of the state legislature she envisions. In today’s political climate, it’s doubtful many citizens will be willing to cede their ability to cast a ballot over to surrogates to do that important job for them.

The Arizona Daily Sun carries a report on the “structural changes,” she thinks are needed. We advise you don’t begin this on an empty stomach.

Judge decries “harassing, frivolous litigation” in awarding damages to Sonoran News

A Maricopa County Superior judge has awarded Sonoran News Publisher and Editor Donald Sorchych $33,732, in attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses along with an award of $5,000, the maximum permitted by law, in statutory damages against plaintiffs The Desert Advocate, Thomas and Karen Seemeyer and their attorney James M. Laganke, while dismissing all claims, in their entirety, with prejudice.

As reported by Linda Bentley in the Sonoran News, Judge Bethany Hicks wrote, “[I]t is just this sort of harassing, frivolous litigation that A.R.S. § 12-349 is intended to repress,” and, cited Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Dep’t of Corrections: “[W]e are convinced that the legislature intended to further reduce frivolous litigation by increasing the threat of fee sanctions.”

A Missive: Dear Judge, Respectfully, David

 Read the communiqué here.

 An accompanying news report is here.

Judge oversteps authority in promoting plea bargains

Today’s daily reports that Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Ryan has ordered County Attorney Andrew Thomas to appear in his court today. 

The issue? Apparently the judge prefers plea agreements to actually trying cases.  He seems especially adverse to death penalty cases — five of which are currently being tried in the system with another 106 awaiting trial.

This is Thomas’ forthright statement regarding the unusual demand by Judge Ryan:

“The decision to seek the death penalty is not made lightly,” he said. “It is perhaps the most important decision I make as county attorney. But let there be no misunderstanding: I will continue to seek this ultimate punishment against vicious first-degree murderers in all appropriate cases. These escalating attempts to pressure me to plea-bargain death-penalty cases are wrong, and I will stand firm against them.”

If Judge Ryan want to make these decisions, he should consider turning in his black robe and running for County Attorney himself. We hear there may be a vacancy soon.