SHOULD JUDGE SUSAN BOLTON HAVE HEARD THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW CASE?
(Aug. 1, 2010) — I’ve recently sent a couple of emails to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ with the last one reading:
I’ve emailed you before that Judge Susan Bolton acted in violation of Article III of the Constitution in the dispute between the US and AZ which – per the black letter law of our land – should have been taken up under the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court (not the Federal District Court).
Certainly Judge Bolton should have known this and acted accordingly. Since she chose to ignore the law, I would urge you to seek sanctions or impeachment of the judge, as clearly a simple reprimand is not sufficient.
In fact, since the preponderance of evidence now shows that we now have someone who has never shown himself to be legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies, I would urge you not only to seek a SCOTUS hearing of original jurisdiction on the SB1070 matter, but to ALSO ask SCOTUS to furnish the appropriate rulings/orders to seek discovery of complete early life records on Obama to include not only his original 1961 long-form birth certificate but the many other documents that may (or may not) support that information. Clearly you have standing to do that since if not legally eligible to hold the office, any laws or other orders the man gives are null and void – including his actions vs. AZ.
I – and MILLIONS of other Americans – believe this man is not legally eligible under Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution and should be required to comply with the Constitution which says “shall” in the cited article. The Supreme Court I believe can take such action under their Rule 17, if not under their normal proceedings. Please note that if you make this discovery effort, at least the two Obama-appointed justices should recuse themselves due to the obvious conflict of interest.
Should you need further legal guidance in the matter, I’d suggest you contact this website along with at least the Lead Plaintiff in the Kerchner et al litigation:
The first email contained much the same information except that it pointed out that Article III of the Constitution specifies that disputes like the one over SB1070 are given to the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court, not the Federal District court. So that there was no mistake about how wrong Judge Bolton actually was, I included the quote in the opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1821 in the case Cohens v. Virginia when he said:
It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
…and I continued to point out that in attempting to take jurisdiction as she did Judge Bolton was not only legally wrong but had committed (as Marshall said) “…treason to the Constitution…”
She should be severely sanctioned, if not impeached. This seems to be a very popular action among Federal judges these days.