Mexico and 10 other Latin American countries were granted permission by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to present their viewpoints in a friend-of-the-court brief in her appeal of a decision that put parts of the state's new immigration law on hold.

Mexico was joined in its brief by Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru

Brewer's lawyers told the appeals court that the opinions of foreign countries have no bearing on whether the law is constitutional.

The 9th Circuit really is a 'Circus' court..

what a bunch of BS

Ok, friend of the court briefs "amicus briefs" are not "suing" anyone. They are advisory briefs submitted to the court in addition to briefs submitted by the parties. It is not at all unusual to see a multitude of entities submitting amicus briefs in high profile cases.

(10-06-2010 01:06 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Ok, friend of the court briefs "amicus briefs" are not "suing" anyone. They are advisory briefs submitted to the court in addition to briefs submitted by the parties. It is not at all unusual to see a multitude of entities submitting amicus briefs in high profile cases.

And how unusual is it for a foreign government to do it in a case about US Constitutional law?

Just because it may be unusual doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.

(10-06-2010 01:37 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Just because it may be unusual doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.

Ok, I'll admit I can't refute your logic so I will conceed, though I still find it *very* *very* distateful for the court to allow foreign governments to take sides in an internal US matter

(10-06-2010 01:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 01:37 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Just because it may be unusual doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.

Ok, I'll admit I can't refute your logic so I will conceed, though I still find it *very* *very* distateful for the court to allow foreign governments to take sides in an internal US matter

I'm fine with this. Many amicus briefs aren't given any thought after reading them. Nothing wrong with getting opinions and seeing how this is affecting everyone. I'm not sure how they're affected matters towards the constitutionality though.

(10-06-2010 02:34 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 01:42 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-06-2010 01:37 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Just because it may be unusual doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it.

Ok, I'll admit I can't refute your logic so I will conceed, though I still find it *very* *very* distateful for the court to allow foreign governments to take sides in an internal US matter

I'm fine with this. Many amicus briefs aren't given any thought after reading them. Nothing wrong with getting opinions and seeing how this is affecting everyone. I'm not sure how they're affected matters towards the constitutionality though.

I'd have no issue with any group of Americans, for or against the AZ law, filing whatever they like but not foreign govt's. An American law is not passed because we want to be sure Mexico or Ireland or South Korea is happy.

Either the law is constitutional or not and it's effect on Chile does not factor into that one bit.

Argentina? I didn't know Argentines were a big illegal immigrant population.

That's one hell of a walk.