Brenda Walker, who attended the oral argument about SB1070 in the Ninth Circuit Court, wrote below that as a non-lawyer, she "found the proceedings interesting, although somewhat mysterious..."It`s not only non-lawyers who feel that way. Ann Althouse reports that one of the judges felt that way about the Justice Department`s argument that the Federal Government had "pre-empted" the Arizona law, quoting the Washington Post report:
"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.""With respect, I do believe we have an argument," responded Kneedler, who said the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.``
Professor Althouse, who`s a professor of Constitutional Law, writes "Yeah, well, but that`s not preemption." So the Administration`s case is a little mysterious to her, too.