During the hearings, Bolton made it clear that she considers SB 1070 not a statute in itself but rather a large combination of new laws and amended existing laws.

She ignored the portions of the law that weren't up for debate, such as restrictions on day laborers, but said she was considering whether to block all or part of certain key sections of the law. She steered the attorneys toward the sticking points in those sections.

instead, they crafted their very own immigration statute, SB 1070, clearly violative of federal perogative in the area. the record indicates that the actual problems became acute during the bush administration, with a republican majority congress. yet, AZ made no effort to effectuate this legislation during that time. instead, it conveniently waited until a democrat was in the white house, and democrats controlled both houses.

If Arizona finds someone is illegal in the course of its State Law enforcement and hands them over to the Feds, and Obama doesn't want to enforce the laws of the US, then he can order his Federal Justice System to free those lost souls wandering around the USA, or he could use his powers as the President to grant them pardons and then they would be fine.

I think that the US Govt wants to act like it does on many an occasion, and cover its eyes, and ears, and mouth because of political reasons.

Easy to say then "what illegal alien problem?"

The federal judge who will be ruling on whether to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect is known as a thorough, efficient, intelligent and fair jurist.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has earned that reputation during nearly a decade on the federal bench in Arizona and 11 years before that as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County.

"I don't think that either party could ask for a better judge," said Dave Cole a law professor at the Phoenix School of Law and former Maricopa County Superior Court judge. "She is very deliberative, very reflective, runs a very tight ship in the courtroom. Very detached, objective, good at applying the law."

SNIP

The consensus among members of the legal community interviewed for this story is that she's the right person to have making such an important decision.

"She's very smart, very well prepared, very quick to cut to the core of things," said Robert Bartels, an Arizona State University law professor. "She's a terrific administrator. She just really gets things done quickly, but still well."

Lawyers are happy when they draw Bolton as the judge for their cases because they know they'll get a fair shake, said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Phoenix office, who brings about five cases a year before Bolton.

"You never worry that there is going to be any bias. You won't hear that about every judge," O'Neill said.

Some other cases she's ruled on:

* January 2010: Rules that Arizona cannot legally bar residents of other states from helping a political party get on the ballot here, rejecting arguments by Secretary of State Ken Bennett that allowing only Arizona residents to circulate these political petitions is necessary to prevent fraud. The decision was considered a victory for the Green Party.

• February 2008: Upheld a designation of critical habitat in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico for the Mexican spotted owl despite an effort by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association to overturn it.

• February 2002: Sentenced a smuggler to 16 years in prison for leading 14 illegal immigrants to their deaths in the desert between Yuma and Ajo.

• 2002: Ruled that Border Patrol officials had legal immunity and couldn't be sued for their part in a 1997 immigrant roundup that led to 430 arrests and drew complaints that Hispanics who were U.S. citizens were harassed because of their appearance.

• 2000: Struck from the ballot a land-preservation proposal advanced by the Arizona Legislature that was a bid to counter a similar proposal by environmentalists that remained on the ballot. Bolton said the Legislature's proposal violated a state constitutional requirement that ballot measures cannot cover more than one subject. Critics called Bolton an activist judge, and accused her of working with the environmentalists to torpedo the Legislature's option.

PENNSYLVANIA V. NELSON, 350 U. S. 497 (1956)

Neither does it limit the right of the State to protect itself at any time against sabotage or attempted violence of all kinds. [Footnote 8] Nor does it prevent the State from prosecuting where the same act constitutes both a federal offense and a state offense under the police power, as was done in Fox v. Ohio,

FOX V. STATE OF OHIO, 46 U. S. 410 (1847)

The two offenses of counterfeiting the coin and passing counterfeit money are essentially different in their characters. The former is an offense directly against the government, by which individuals may be affected; the latter is a private wrong, by which the government may be remotely, if it will in any degree, be reached.

Ignorance of the scope of the constitution on this aside (and kind of hard to put it there, but...), she sounds like she's nursing a grudge, or a very strong personal opinion is seriously affecting her judicial demeanor.

Facts About Federal Preemption (pdf)

Three criteria:

In De Canas v. Bica, the Supreme Court articulated three tests to determine whether federal law preempts a state or local statute relating to immigration. The tests for determining preemption are:

1. Constitutional preemption: Is the state or locality attempting to regulate immigration?

2. Field preemption: Did Congress intend to occupy the field and oust state or local power?

3. Conflict preemption: Does the state or local law stand as an obstacle to or conflict with federal law, making compliance with both the state and federal law impossible?

A state statute or local ordinance that fails any one of these three tests is preempted by federal law, is unconstitutional, and is therefore invalid.

I think this judge is under lots of pressure to side with Arizona especially if the court is there in Arizona and I assume she lives in Arizona

Why can't Arizona "enforce" immigration laws unless the federal government authorizes such enforcement? Simply, the Constitution does not permit it.

According the the Washington Post story:

Kneedler said the conflict with federal law comes because the status checks are mandatory, which could lead to federal agencies being overwhelmed with deportation requests. Top officials at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, whose agents will handle most of the calls from Arizona authorities if the law takes effect, have said they will not necessarily respond to every call.

Why can't Arizona "enforce" immigration laws unless the federal government authorizes such enforcement? Simply, the Constitution does not permit it. Immigration policy and enforcement is solely, by express provision of the Constitution (see also the Federalist Papers), the province of the federal government. This is not a close question. It is a slam dunk.

Well maybe.  The Constitution gives the feds the sole power to regulate interstate commerce.  Since the Wheat case just about every smidgen of commerce is considered interstate commerece.  Are the states barred from regulating commerce?  No.  Until the Congress by law tells the states to butt out, see Obamacare, the states are free to legislate.  

1st thing is that the Pres is supposed to swear when he takes office to see that the laws are faithfully enforced, and so, apparently, he could be sued on the basis of failing to perform;

My counter claim is simple.