It wasn't long after the news that a federal judge blocked key portions of the controversial Arizona immigration law, did the commentary start rolling in online.
Here's a sampling:
The Guardian's Michael Tomasky:
This is the part of the law that in effect required - okay, let's not say required; let's say it made it the better part of wisdom and prudence - brown-skinned people to have their papers with them at all times. She upheld other aspects of the law and they can go into effect Thursday.
It would seem, unless I'm misinterpreting, that the supremacy clause argument made by the federal government won the day.
CNN's Jeffery Toobin:
So what happens now?
Some of it will have to do with the legal strategy followed by the state of Arizona here. The state of Arizona could ask the judge to revisit the issue after more fact-finding. They could also go directly to the Court of Appeals — which is the next up in the federal court structure.
I think this is a case very much destined for United States Supreme Court. It is the kind of big issue relating to the responsibilities of state versus federal government on a very important matter, so it's likely, given how much attention this law received that other states will be passing similar laws. I think the Supreme Court will get involved probably next year. The issue that's up in the air is will the law be in effect while the appeals process goes forward? At the moment the answer is no — at least this one provision. But certainly an appeals process will begin. If not immediately, then soon.
Huffington Post's Ray Suarez:
Actors and athletes get a lot of attention when they take public stands on issues like immigration. It will be interesting to see if the state's merchants feel the more modest pain others promise to inflict. This week I looked on as Alma Mendoza, who came to the United States illegally as a teenager and now owns her own house-cleaning business, got her house ready for 8 out of state visitors coming to protest. "They are staying with me because they don't want to spend any money in Arizona. So I'm getting beds ready for them."
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard:
Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost.
Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state. It is time to look beyond election year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy.
Perhaps now we in Arizona can focus on effective steps to fight border crime and keep our families safe. Now we can focus on steps, such as the ones I have been taking, to go after border crime and cut off the cash that flows to organized criminal cartels that smuggle thousands into the U.S.
CD8 candidate Jesse Kelly:
Recently, the Obama Administration attacked Arizona for trying to defend itself. Today, the courts leave our state defenseless against the violence and murders caused by illegal immigration. This is a travesty! The federal government has refused to do its job but will not allow the states to protect themselves.
... and here's what the morning daily had to say:
The poor phrasing of the central provision in SB 1070 led to its being thrown out, according to the injunction issued today by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton.
The first sentence of Section 2(B) of the law details the situations in which police officers must attempt to determine a person’s immigration status. It says that during any lawful stop, detention or arrest, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is illegally in the country, the officer must make an effort to find out if the person is legally in the country.
But the next sentence says simply: “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.”