Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Arizona’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that blocked the most controversial provisions of SB-1070 from taking effect. The heated exchange that took place between the three judges and both the deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler and Arizona’s lawyer, John J. Bouma dropped a few notable hints as to how the judges will rule.

In July, federal district court judge Susan Bolton blocked the most significant sections SB-1070 from taking effect, arguing that “the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that…[they] are preempted by federal law” and the “United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm” in the absence of an injunction.

However, at least one of the appellate judges, Judge John T. Noonan Jr., took issue with the federal government’s federal preemption argument. In a testy exchange, Noonan told Kneedler: “We’ve read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument.” Noonan went on, “We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive…You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption…I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.” Bea was similarly unimpressed, stating, “It’s up to the state how they want to use their people.”

Bouma didn’t get off easy either. Noonan shared concerns expressed by the federal government that the failure to immediately verify lawful presence could result in the prolonged detention of lawfully present immigrants and citizens. “I don’t know any provision of federal law that goes that far, now isn’t that getting into federal territory?” asked Noonan. “How can we construe it so that detention does not exceed what would be possible under federal law?” “How long would that be?” chimed in Judge Richard A. Paez. “Twenty-four hours? Forty-eight hours? A week?”

Judge Carlos Bea appeared to take issue with Section 5 of the law which criminalizes the solicitation, application for, or performance of work by an undocumented immigrant. Bea pointed to a previous court case which affirmed that congressional intention is not to punish employees. “I’ll tell you what the problem is Mr. Bouma, is that you’re arguing something which is simply foreclosed to us,” said Bea.

Based on today’s oral arguments, many are speculating that the Appeals court will not uphold the injunction on the part of the law which mandates police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if they reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally. Meanwhile, it seems likely that the court will uphold the injunction on provisions relating to detention and the criminalization of certain immigration offenses that are considered minor under federal immigration law.

In the end, speculations are merely guesstimates. This past summer, one reporter dissected Bolton’s statements, concluding that Bolton seemed “skeptical” about the federal preemption argument and appeared to support the argument that certain provisions are unconstitutional because they violate the rights of U.S. citizens. In the end, Bolton supported both arguments when she enjoined parts of the law.

It’s also important to remember that today’s hearing wasn’t on the constitutionality of the law itself, but rather on whether certain provisions of the law should be allowed to take effect before a final decision is made concerning its overall legality. With that said, part of the court’s decision will be based on the “likelihood of success” which will likely preview any future decisions they will make on the law.

David Broder’s column yesterday, in which the once-respected journalist suggested that, “as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war [with Iran], the economy will improve,” has already come under a hail of criticism, on a number of counts.

In regard to Broder’s economic claims, Rudy DeLeon, Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, and who has many years of experience on defense issues both at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill, offers this correction:

Defense spending can’t generate an economic recovery. When FDR mobilized the country to become the great “arsenal of democracy,” he was starting from the bottom. There was little shipbuilding, aircraft, or combat vehicle production in place. FDR’s economic mobilization was from the bottom up.

Obama inherits a budget already at $700 billion in actual spending for defense. It only supports the jobs already in place. So Broder’s claim about a defense budget bonanza is just wrong.

Broder’s misconceptions about the salutary economic effects of mobilizing for war aside, there’s also his troubling suggestion that President Obama prepare to attack Iran for the political benefits he might realize.

Marc Lynch tracks the path of this argument back to Elliott Abrams. Responding in August to Jeffrey Goldberg’s long piece about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Abrams wrote:

The political side of all this is equally plain. Obama will, by all accounts, suffer a tremendous setback in November and may well be defeated in 2012. Should Iran acquire the Bomb in the next two years — the timetable Jeffrey suggests — Republicans will have an even stronger case that Obama has weakened our national security. The Obama who had struck Iran and destroyed its nuclear program would be a far stronger candidate, and perhaps an unbeatable one.

While Abrams’ piece may represent the moment when the neocon “bomb Iran for votes” argument entered the “serious” foreign policy conversation, however, the trail doesn’t end there.

Back in February, speaking to Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Sarah Palin similarly suggested that President Obama could impress people like Sarah Palin if he “decided to declare war on Iran“:

WALLACE: How hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012?

PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played — and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day — say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really [to] come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, but — that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years…

WALLACE: But you’re not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card?

PALIN: I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying if he did, things would dramatically change. If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would, perhaps, shift their thinking a little bit and decide, “Well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he’s — than he is today,” and there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years.

Typically, Palin was fudging the truth here. She didn’t get the idea from Buchanan, as his piece condemned the idea, which originated, as far as I can tell, with neocon activist Daniel Pipes.

Five days before Palin’s interview, Pipes had written:

Just as 9/11 caused voters to forget George W. Bush’s meandering early months, a strike on Iranian facilities would dispatch Obama’s feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene. It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon.

After Palin’s interview, Pipes immediately claimed credit, noting “It’s nice to have a major political figure endorse my idea.”

And now it’s been endorsed by “the dean of the Washington press corps.”

This past Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was sending 400 federal observers and monitors to 30 potential “trouble spots” in 18 states on Election Day. One of those “trouble spots,” Maricopa County, is home to Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio — whose name was attached to a troubling email which claimed that a “grassroots army” would be “stand[ing] vigilant across the nation” to make sure only legal citizens vote. Arpaio himself has since backed away from the message and claims he never authorized the group which sent it, Ban Amnesty Now, to sign his name on to it.

Meanwhile, the anti-immigrant Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) blasted the DOJ’s decision, claiming that rather than protecting minorities from voter intimidation, the Obama administration is encouraging undocumented immigrants to vote. “They’re sending them out because the Obama administration
is doing everything it can to make sure as many illegal aliens vote in 2010 although that is a violation of federal law,” ALIPAC’s Executive Director told Fox News.

Fox & Friends hosts backed the claim this morning:

CARLSON: Just in time for the election, the Justice Department is sending election observers to the state. You ask why? Well, they say they are worried that there may be some sort of discrimination going on against Hispanic voters. But, William Gheen, the e said he knows exactly why they’re coming. Here’s what he says: [...] [Reads quote.] That’s quite an accusation coming from that particular group.

KILMEADE: So in his mind they’re sending out observers to turn their back, to allow people to vote in elections where they don’t belong in.

DOOCY: They’re looking for volunteers to do some patrolling, essentially recruiting them to block illegals from voting. See that’s the problem. They say “illegals should not be voting,” but it’s relatively easy in a number of states for illegals to vote. Particularly in Arizona. All you gotta do is show a water bill, a heat bill, you got a library card, a driver’s license, all stuff you can get if you are in this country illegally. So, that’s why they’re doing that and Hispanic groups are steamed.

Watch it:

However, Arizona has one of the toughest voter identification laws in the country. While an appeals court recently struck down an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote, it upheld a separate provision in the law requiring voters to present government-issued identification at the polls. Since Arizona does not allow undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver’s licence, it’s actually not “relatively easy” for “illegals to vote.”

There is “no evidence that non-citizens vote in significant numbers anywhere in the country.” In fact, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett released a statement indicating that right-wing allegations that the SEIU-affiliated Mi Familia Vota had committed voter fraud in Arizona’s Yuma County “are without merit.”

Yet, Arizona does have a history of voter suppression. Laura Brown from the Arizona Advocacy Network explains, “Arizona has such a long history of voter suppression and dirty tricks…We’re very concerned that they’re going to go to the polls and harass voters and try to intimidate them.”

In 2008, the American Prospect reported that Arizona’s voter ID law “disenfranchised up to 60 percent of applicants in some counties.” Greg Palast, author of “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy,” has an interesting video up on Truthout on his investigation of Arizona’s voter ID which he describes as a “racist trap set by the Republican Party of Arizona.”