Paez Without Honor— Hispanic Activist Judge Leads Attack On Arizona Law

Once again,
judicial activists have obstructed

democratic will of the American people

that our laws against illegal immigration should be
enforced. After

Clinton appointee Susan Bolton

issued a preliminary injunction against Arizona`s SB
1070 last July, the

far-Left 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

upheld the injunction against the most controversial
part of the bill, which required law enforcement to
check the legal status of people they came across where
there was a reasonable suspicion they were here

The decision was
written by

Richard A. Paez
a Clinton appointee.



wrote a concurring opinion, while George W. Bush

Carlos Bea

issued a partial dissent.

Former Justice
Department Attorney and
Yale Law Journal


helped craft the language in SB 1070 specifically to
withstand constitutional challenges by making sure it
strictly confirmed to previous precedent from
immigration case law.

There is
absolutely no reason why any non-activist judge would
even consider the Justice Department`s lawsuit.

Unfortunately, the
9th Circuit is filled with

ideologically-driven activist justices

I have not had
time to look closely at the entire 87 page ruling, [
US vs. State of Arizona,
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, April 11, 2011 (PDF)] and
no doubt more knowledgeable legal minds will scrutinize
the decision further. But I will just give one little
tidbit that I noticed.

Judge Paez`s
decision stated: “We
have previously suggested that states do not have the
inherent authority to enforce the civil provisions of
federal immigration law”
. He then cited the previous
Ninth Circuit decision

Gonzales v. Peoria

quoting Gonzales to the effect that it
“assume[d] that
the civil provisions of the [INA] regulating authorized

length of stay

, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive
regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the
exclusive federal power over immigration.”

However, this intentionally misconstrues the definition of
federal power”
. According to the Gonzales
decision itself,
the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an
exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power
does not preempt

every state activity
affecting aliens.”


The Gonzales decision goes on specifically
to note that local law enforcement can arrest
individuals for federal immigration violations

if there was
“probable cause to believe either that

illegal entry

has occurred or that

another offense has been committed

Further scrutiny
will likely find dozens of similar completely
manufactured arguments by the Ninth Circuit Justices.

Perhaps more
telling than the non-existent Constitutional and common
law arguments made by the Justices is the fact that they
explicitly announced that ideological and political
concerns affected their interpretation of the law.

Judge Paez stated
in his decision:

“Arizona`s law has created actual
foreign policy problems of a magnitude far greater than
incidental. Thus far, the following foreign leaders and
bodies have publicly criticized Arizona`s law: The
Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and
Guatemala; the governments of Brazil, Colombia,
Honduras, and Nicaragua; the national assemblies in
Ecuador and Nicaragua and the Central American
Parliament; six human rights experts at the United
Nations; the Secretary General and many permanent
representatives of the Organization of American States;
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and the
Union of South American Nations.”

But the
“human rights
experts at the United Nations”
that Judge Paez cites
are members of the UN Human Rights Council which


such paragons of human rights such as Saudi Arabia,
Cuba, and Pakistan.

And the
Union of South American Nations


whose president


is one of the most


leaders on the continent; and

whose President Eva Morales


protestors who tried to burn down the US Embassy. Both
these countries belong to the

Organization of American States

and the

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights,

as does


Mexico, needless
to say, has complained about SB 1070. But it has also
spoken out against
measures taken by the Congress”

against illegal immigration. [
President Assails U.S. Measures on Migrants
By James C. McKinley Jr., New York Times,
September 3, 2007] As`s

Allan Wall
has repeatedly
demonstrated, Mexico`s position is completely


and amounts to complaining if Americans dare to

intervene in their own affairs

Judge Noonan concurred with
Paez, but added:
“The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For

those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States,

it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of

what other states
might attempt

Noonan went on to
claim that this colorful comment did not affect his
constitutional judgment. So why did he make it?

Who are these
unelected Justices subverting the people of Arizona? Two
of the three Judges, Carlos Bea and Richard Paez are
Hispanic. In the interest of fairness, I will say there
is little evidence that Judge Bea`s decision reflected
his ethnicity. His decision dissented from, and
specifically rejected, the other two Justices` appeals
to foreign affairs.

But Richard Paez
is another story. His nomination was held up for over a
year due to his left-wing record. He once said
"I appreciate …
the need of the courts to act, when they must, when the
issue results from the failure of the political process
to resolve a certain question”
and referred to

anti-racial preference California Civil Rights
Initiative as an

“anti-civil rights

suggesting he would strike it down. [
No Justice, No Paez,
by Mickey Kaus, Slate, March 12, 2000]

Naturally, groups
like the

Congressional Hispanic Caucus

said that Republican racism was the cause of Paez`
confirmation delay.

Paez went on to
speak at the Berkley La Raza Law Journal`s

Raising the Bar: Latino and
Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for

at which

Sonia Sotomayor
made her now-infamous

At the panel,
Judge Paez said:
“Though I am a Latino judge and there is no question
about that – I am viewed as a Latino judge – as I judge
cases, I try to judge them fairly. I try to remain
faithful to my oath.”
These milquetoast statements
led neoconservative


and his fellow-traveler


to praise Paez for supposedly rejecting Sotomayor`s
race-conscious stand.

But in their rush
to find what Lowry called
Latinos for Impartiality“,
they ignored that Paez essentially made the same point
as Sotomayor. He noted:
“There is
something about our own personal life experience that
makes each of us different”

“life experience”
included the horror
that “When I
first began working at the arraignment court, I was
confronted with a sea of brown faces. It was somewhat
disturbing because there were so many brown and black
faces in the courtroom and holding areas. It was
Kristol misconstrued
Paez comments
Media Matters, May 31, 2009]

This case of SB
1070 will no doubt end up before the Supreme Court,
which is decidedly more conservative than Bolton or the
9th Circuit Panel. I am cautiously optimistic
that it will uphold SB 1070.

But no matter how
the Supreme Court rules, this latest judicial atrocity
shows that in addition to defeating the ideological and
ethnic interests that

control our political system
immigration patriots must also triumph over
ideologically-driven activist judges.

This triumph can
be achieved in several ways. But it may even mean, as editor



the ultimate weapon of


"Washington Watcher" [email
] is an anonymous source Inside The