ME Dem Senate Candidate on Platner: That Nazi Oyster Farmer Accused of Rape...
Justice Department Just Put This City on Notice After It Stopped Christians From...
Abigail Spanberger Gets Lit Up Over Her Energy Affordability Lies
If Your Ideology Requires the Silencing of Dissidents, Your Ideology Is Dangerous (and...
Elissa Slotkin Admits Why the Democrats Really Oppose the SAVE America Act
Ted Cruz Remembers His Dear Friend Lindsey Graham
Thanks for Proving 'Banned Books' Was a Lie, Dua Lipa
Never Forget the Media's Despicable Response to the Butler Assassination Attempt
Illness, Death and Turmoil Change Face of GOP Senate
What If America's Moral Decline Is an Economic Problem, Not Just a Religious...
Trump Just Gave a Huge Update on Iran
'It's Not Extreme': Guess What the DSA Wants to Abolish Now
Texas Is About to Take on Birth Tourism
Rebecca Cooke Sold Herself As an Outsider While Profiting From Democratic Political Consul...
'Disgusting Ideology': Brandon Gill Blasts DEI Policies in Joint Committee Hearing
Tipsheet

Good News for AZ

Good News for AZ
This is good news regarding the Obama Justice Department suing Arizona for trying to enforce its borders.

From WAPO:
A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.
Advertisement

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement