Obama’s lawsuit against AZ is not based on law
As a legal/technical translator, I have read and translated my share of legal briefs.
The lawsuit brought by the Obama administration against AZ is by far the lamest, most juvenile brief I have read in my nearly 40 years of exposure to such texts. The main reason for this is that, in all of the lawsuits I have read heretofore, there is a citation of law. Here there are no laws cited at all and also no case law. It fails in fact to rise to the level of a legal brief. The fact that it was even accepted by the Supreme Court is an ominous sign for our country.
Text sample [my comments in brackets]:
“It [the AZ law] will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens [How will it conflict with federal law if it agrees with it? No legal precepts or laws specified]. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution [First, what protections are legally available for “an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution”? Would an alien have a well founded fear of persecution if he was acting within the law? Further, since the AZ law is based on federal law, then it would have to be the federal law that is ignoring humanitarian concerns. No laws specified] or who has been the victim of a natural disaster [If it is legal to enter the US without papers on the grounds of a natural disaster, then AZ law does not apply because it is based on US law. If it is illegal to enter the US without papers in case of a natural disaster, then the courts must base their decision on the law as written, not on controversial opinion as to what constitutes a hardship case and whether humanitarian concerns override the law in such a case. Besides, again, the federal law is the basis for this AZ law, so it is not fair to single out AZ as one of many states that expect federal immigration law to be obeyed within its boundaries or to punish the state for having such reasonable expectations]. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries [Is this diplomatic relationship not based on law? If not, on what is it based? If something other than law, then this is not a matter for the courts to decide, because they are charged only with evaluating the legal aspects of any case or law, not the diplomatic aspects].”
If the Supreme Court sides with Obama in this case, then we can no longer in any way expect our legal system to base any decision on the law as written. Legal decisions then become a matter of personal philosophy of the judges. For example, the president could demand in a lawsuit that all auto makers and sellers cease and desist from their activity on the grounds that some cars have fatal accidents.
The courts have always sided with the States in matters of immigration of this kind, so a departure from case law would also open up a new era of total randomness in court decisions. No legal system can stand for long under such circumstances.