Statement from AZ Gov. Jan Brewer regarding alien invaders

Post Reply New Topic

"Yesterday, I signed HB2191 to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in civil court cases and made the law retroactive. In February, the 9th Circuit had outrageously ordered Arizona rancher Roger Barnett to pay $87,000 in punitive damages to 16 illegal immigrants that Mr. Barnett had detained on his ranch because the illegal immigrants felt they were "unlawfully detained" by Mr. Barnett."

Dang, that was a silly law suit wasn't it? 87 Grand for bad room service...I mean really.

What would we do if real alien invaders started colonizing our planet

At least he didn't get probed.

Well, if the Courts ordered the defendant to pay damages, then this was not merely a case that the individuals in question "felt" that they were unlawfully detained, but rather that a Court of competent jurisdiction found that the defendant had acted illegally.

I am so glad that the Governor of Arizona is prepared to countenance her state's citizens' illegal actions. I guess in that part of the world two wrongs do make a right.

It's not unprecedented for the state to act in this way to nullify what is broadly seen as abuse of the legal system. I'm thinking specifically of Castle Doctrine laws that allow for virtually unlimited action in defending yourself from an intruder in your home and indemnify you against all legal damages when doing so. They were created specifically due to widespread outrage over criminals who were injured while committing burglary/robbery successfully suing homeowners for damages; the courts may have been technically correct in awarding damages in those cases, but most felt it was a perversion of the law, hence the changes to such.

The legislature is, of course, free to nullify whatever it likes, within the limits of the Constitution--whether it is abusive or not.

My complaint is not with the legislature (though I have issues with any legislature that seeks to infringe upon the rights of litigants), but rather the callous political rhetoric that reduces a valid legal claim to the somewhat dubious language of "feelings" and includes an ex post facto legitimation of behaviour adjudged to be wrongful.

It is, perhaps, the retroactive nature of the legislation that is truly offensive.

The retroactive part is the only part that is questionable, however it could be argued the court overstepped their authority, which wouldn't be surprising given the decision was from the most overturned court in the country.

If the Court overstepped its authority, then the proper remedy for that lies in appeals.

I think there is a significant constitutional question about whether the legislature has usurped the authority of the judiciary by enacting legislation that serves to nullify a valid and subsisting judgement that would properly have fallen within the jurisdiction of an appellate court.

Still, strict constructionists only seem to favour strict construction when it suits their political mood.

You do know that we’re talking about illegal aliens that march across Roger Barnett’s land on a regular basis, right???
Concern for their rights, if they have any, is ludicrous.
If he’d shot them instead I would have sent him a Hallmark thank you card…

Arizona should just institute the Castle Doctrine like in Texas which would give ranchers a license to shoot anyone trespassing on their property.

I'm sorry but the Feds should be held responsible for not doing their job in the first place.