Mexico, 10 other countries want a say on AZ immigration law appeal

[Old Fart]

May-he-co I in your general direction.

I actually like the Mexican people.
I just don't want the scum moving up here.
Regardless of which S.A. country they come from.

 

[brazilianboy]

I'm not sure who's on the panel, but I'll bet that the amicus curiae is allowed.

FRAP 29. BRIEF OF AN AMICUS CURIAE

(a) When Permitted.
The United States or its officer or agency, or a State, Territory, Commonwealth, or the District of Columbia may file an amicus-curiae brief without the consent of the parties or leave of court. Any other amicus curiae may file a brief only by leave of court or if the brief states that all parties have consented to its filing.

(b) Motion for Leave to File.
The motion must be accompanied by the proposed brief and state:

(1) the movant’s interest; and

(2) the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.

(c) Contents and Form.
An amicus brief must comply with Rule 32. In addition to the requirements of Rule 32, the cover must identify the party or parties supported and indicate whether the brief supports affirmance or reversal. If an amicus curiae is a corporation, the brief must include a disclosure statement like that required of parties by Rule 26.1. An amicus brief need not comply with Rule 28, but must include the following:

(1) a table of contents, with page references;

(2) a table of authorities—cases (alphabetically arranged), statutes and other authorities—with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited;

(3) a concise statement of the identity of the amicus curiae, its interest in the case, and the source of its authority to file;

(4) an argument, which may be preceded by a summary and which need not include a statement of the applicable standard of review; and

(5) a certificate of compliance, if required by Rule 32(a)(7).

(d) Length.
Except by the court’s permission, an amicus brief may be no more than one-half the maximum length authorized by these rules for a party’s principal brief. If the court grants a party permission to file a longer brief, that extension does not affect the length of an amicus brief.

(e) Time for Filing.
An amicus curiae must file its brief, accompanied by a motion for filing when necessary, no later than 7 days after the principal brief of the party being supported is filed. An amicus curiae that does not support either party must file its brief no later than 7 days after the appellant’s or petitioner’s principal brief is filed. A court may grant leave for later filing, specifying the time within which an opposing party may answer.

(f) Reply Brief.
Except by the court’s permission, an amicus curiae may not file a reply brief.

(g) Oral Argument.
An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court’s permission.

AMICUS CURIAE
One of the things I like in the american law system...
Help me to understand; can anyone provide additional info to the court ? -any layperson ? need to be a juristic person ?

 

[inactive]

AMICUS CURIAE
One of the things I like in the american law system...
Help me to understand; can anyone provide additional info to the court ? -any layperson ? need to be a juristic person ?

Well, really anyone can be a friend of the court. But as I am sure you can imagine, it is typically large special interest groups who have attorneys on staff and the money to throw at the process (i.e. Unions, the NRA, ACLU, NORML, etc...), or other lower jurisdictions that have an interest in the matter (i.e. State AGs).

 

[sigsilly]

I don't know about any body else here, but that ticks me off no end.
If they are allowed to have say in this, states's rights within the US are gone.

 

[Dale00]

“When Mexicans talk about undocumented migrants in their midst, they sound like Americans: Resentful, sympathetic, patronizing (and) perplexed,” Ms. Gorney observes. Simply put, a double standard urges us to ignore illegal immigration while Mexico continues to dump illegals back across its southern border with Guatemala. While politicians and journalists use politically correct words like “undocumented workers” to describe illegals, Mexican officials don’t worry about PC niceties or legal technicalities when they round up illegals and summarily deport them.

Double standard

Here in the U.S. an illegal immigrant gets a hearing in federal court. In Mexico, an illegal often gets whacked upside the head before he or she is thrown into the river that marks the border between Mexico and Guatemala. If an American border patrol agent threw an illegal immigrant into the Rio Grande we’d never hear the end of it from Mexican officials and the ACLU, who’d be hollering about the alleged constitutional “rights” of immigrants. Again, a double standard prevails.

“Look, this (illegal border crossing) is a business,” a Mexican university professor told National Geographic. He meant not only the daily business along the riverbank, but also the broader interactions between desperately poor immigrants “and the fierce economic pull from the north.” That’s why illicit border-crossers are willing to pay “coyotes” (human smugglers) between $5,000 and $7,000 to sneak them into Mexico, and on into the U.S.

http://americanchaos.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/mexico-could-teach-the-us-a-few-things-about-border-enforcement/

 

[vvvvvvv]

AMICUS CURIAE
One of the things I like in the american law system...
Help me to understand; can anyone provide additional info to the court ? -any layperson ? need to be a juristic person ?

Well, really anyone can be a friend of the court. But as I am sure you can imagine, it is typically large special interest groups who have attorneys on staff and the money to throw at the process (i.e. Unions, the NRA, ACLU, NORML, etc...), or other lower jurisdictions that have an interest in the matter (i.e. State AGs).

Close.

You have to first request permission from the court to file an amicus curiae brief. In your request for permission, you have to show why you are a party who has pertinent knowledge and (typically) will be affected in some way by a ruling. It is at the ultimate discretion of the court whether or not you will actually get to file your brief, but all parties involved in the case must consent to you filing a brief before the court can give its final yea or nay.

Basically, if you are a nationally recognized organization or well-respected scholar, you will likely be able to file an amicus brief. When filing an amicus brief, you have to provide written documentation of you receiving permission from every party involved in the case. This has gotten a lot easier with email.

The court is not supposed to consider any opinions contained within an amicus brief, but they are an opportunity for someone who is not directly involved in the case to alert the court to precedents that may not have been considered by the involved parties.

At least that is my take, but I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever filed (or would likely ever be able to file) an amicus brief. But I do like to read that stuff for leisure.

 

[pinkhamr]

More bullsh!t .... and I used to live in Arizona and they have got it right. The damn Feds 'must' stop playing with this and get serious about closing the border!

 

[vvvvvvv]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43199.html#ixzz11mI51Md0

In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.

The move comes in response to a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling issued Monday, allowing nearly a dozen Latin American countries — Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures.

“As do many citizens, I find it incredibly offensive that these foreign governments are using our court system to meddle in a domestic legal dispute and to oppose the rule of law,” the Republican governor said in a statement shortly after the state’s motion was filed Tuesday evening.


###

Personally, I don't see the problem.

 

[inactive]

Close.

You have to first request permission from the court to file an amicus curiae brief. In your request for permission, you have to show why you are a party who has pertinent knowledge and (typically) will be affected in some way by a ruling. It is at the ultimate discretion of the court whether or not you will actually get to file your brief, but all parties involved in the case must consent to you filing a brief before the court can give its final yea or nay.

Basically, if you are a nationally recognized organization or well-respected scholar, you will likely be able to file an amicus brief. When filing an amicus brief, you have to provide written documentation of you receiving permission from every party involved in the case. This has gotten a lot easier with email.

The court is not supposed to consider any opinions contained within an amicus brief, but they are an opportunity for someone who is not directly involved in the case to alert the court to precedents that may not have been considered by the involved parties.

At least that is my take, but I'm not a lawyer, nor have I ever filed (or would likely ever be able to file) an amicus brief. But I do like to read that stuff for leisure.

Don't underestimate how loudly money talks by having delusions of how judicial process should work!!



I was giving him the short answer.