Fox fuels fire in Arizona immigration action - Rochester Independent | Examiner.com

Megyn Kelly and Monica Crowley of Fox News rip into the Obama administration over ten Latin American countries being allowed to join in on Mexico's "friend of the court" brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the Justice Department's challenge to Arizona's SB-1070 immigration law.  The video of the news story is available on YouTube under the title, "YOU MUST WATCH THIS: IMPEACH OBAMA NOW."  It might be expected the person posting this was editorializing a bit, but if you watch the video, that pretty much captures the sentiment of the news report.

That sentiment is not lost on viewers who are apoplectic over this "shocking" revelation.  Comments on a Facebook page (Facebook login required) where this video was posted give a good sense of the ire this video is rousing.

...This is Obama's attempt to bring in International Law to the picture. dismiss ALL the Justices at the 9th circuit.....they are Communist and are traitors against the United States! we pay their salary.....yes this is offensive and is treason.....by every one of the 9th circuit.CRAZY It is NOT stunning it is a disgrace. Obama MUST be IMPEACHED . Why are we not insisting on his immediate removal from office?? The very countries that are chiming in about AZ are amongst the most cruelest in their treatment of illegals.

While the core facts of this report are not in dispute, the outrage over this happening is entirely manufactured.  The notion that this is a treasonous action by the court or constitutes collusion between Obama and foreign governments is simply untrue.  Yet the facts are being twisted to fuel the furor of people who are already inclined to see conspiracy.  Were this being done just by random Facebook commenters, then while disturbing, it's well within their rights of expression to spout their opinions without regard to the truthfulness of the assertions.  But Fox News bills itself as a news organization.  It is expected to be, and trusted to be, factually accurate.  It may have an editorial bias, but outright distortion and manipulation of information should be out of bounds.  Apparently it's not.

In the case at hand, the Obama administration is following the due process for challenging a state law as defined by the U.S. Constitution and the American system of jurisprudence.  Some may disagree that this law should be challenged, but that's a policy disagreement, not a basis for impeachment.  The Justice department filed suit against the state of Arizona, and the courts are supposed to rule on the merits of the case.  That's the way it works.

It is not at all unusual for interested parties to file so-called amicus or "friend of the court" briefs to express their opinions on the matter.  There are many parties the court has agreed to accept briefs from:

(1) The United Mexican States; (2) Legal Momentum; (3) Arizona Cities of Flagstaff, Tolleson, San Luis, and Somerton; (4) City of Tucson; (5) The County of Santa Clara, California; (6) Anti-Defamation League; (7) Friendly House Plaintiffs; (8) League of United Latin American Citizens, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., Magdalena Schwartz, Joseph David Sandoval, and David Salgado; (9) National Council of La Raza, United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, The Hispanic National Bar Association And Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association; and (10) American Immigration Lawyers Association. The following governments have moved for leave to join the Amicus brief of The United Mexican States: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Chile.

There is nothing about this process which means the court has to listen to any of the parties' opinions.  It is just giving everyone a chance to speak.  Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer is arguing that this is strictly an internal matter, and interests outside the U.S. should not even be allowed to be heard.  But Mexico's brief (PDF) makes a case for why SB-1070 is not strictly internal.

I. SB 1070’s Intrusion in International Affairs Impedes International Relations and Bilateral Collaboration in Cross-Border Issues A. SB 1070 Will Severely Hinder Mexico-Arizona Trade and Tourism B. SB 1070 Derails Efforts Towards Comprehensive Immigration Reform and Collaborative Border Management C. SB 1070 Obstructs International and Border Collaboration to Combat Drug Issues II. SB 1070 Poses a Risk of Harassment by Law Enforcement to Mexican Citizens III. SB 1070 Dangerously Leads to a Patchwork of Laws that Impede Effective and Consistent Diplomatic Relations

Arizona has not provided any specifics with regard to how this law could possibly be implemented without impacting legal immigrants and legal Hispanic visitors to Arizona.  Therefore, independent of the law's impact on U.S. citizens, the law will likely effect citizens of Latin American countries, and this could reasonably have an influence on U.S. relations with these countries.  That does not mean the interest of these foreign countries and their citizens should or will trump the interest of this country.  That is not the test for filing a brief.  The test is only that the brief come from someone with a direct interest in the case's outcome.  That test passes.

Much is also made of the Justice department's agreement to allow the briefs to be filed.  What isn't stated is that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require the court to seek permission from the parties involved, or they may assent themselves.  In accordance with the rules, the Ninth Circuit Court asked the Justice Department and the State of Arizona for consent.  Justice said yes, and Arizona said no.  Then, as almost always happens, the court allowed the brief anyway.  In other words, asking the parties for permission was a courtesy only.  The court routinely assents to requests to file briefs, and as a result, the federal government routinely rubber-stamps a yes on the request.  This wasn't a conspiracy, just court business as usual.

But the conspiracy theory was already rolling along.  On the Facebook page, one commenter claims, "THERE IS SOMETHING THEY DID NOT MENTION....THE 9TH CIRCUIT AND THE FED GOVERNMENT WANT TO BLOCK THE TESTIMONY OF THE THE STATE SENATOR WHO AUTHORED SB1070!!! So, we have 11 Foreign countries weighing in on a STATE Sovereignty issue... bu...t the STATE SENATOR WHO WROTE IT... is Persona non-grata!!!"  Not true.  The court denied Sen. Russell Pearce's request to testify as a third party in the case.  Pearce insisted that as author of the bill he had a unique perspective, one different than the State of Arizona.  The court agreed that Pearce could file an amicus brief, and it would also be possible for Arizona to call him as a witness, which they haven't chosen to do.  No one in Justice or on the court is trying to keep him quiet.

In the video, Kelly asks, "Why are we looking to Bolivia for its opinion on on the constitutionality of an Arizona state law?"  That would be a valid question if it were remotely true.  First, "we" aren't looking at all.  Mexico and 10 other countries petitioned the court to be heard.  No one at Justice went looking for their help.  Second, the brief does not even attempt to address the constitutionality of the law.  The brief only discusses the potential impact on foreign relations if the law is not overturned.

Crowley states later that the Justice department is weighing in on the side of foreign governments.  Unfortunately, that's exactly backwards.  Foreign governments are weighing in on the side of the federal government.

Finally, in one of the most blatantly inflammatory moments on the video, Crowley says of the Justice Department, "They are waging war against the American people. They are waging war against one of our 50 states."  When did filing suit and allowing a case to work its way through the courts become war?  Obama didn't send troops into Arizona to enact marshal law and prevent SB-1070 from being enacted.  He followed the legal process, and all indications are that things are progressing apace.  Our courts may be hell, but war?

The real story is that there is no story here.  This is a procedural non-event.  Yet it has been blown into a firestorm resulting in cries of treason and demanding impeachment.  The villagers are gathering with pitchforks and torches in hand.  Crowds riled by deliberate misinformation and unwarranted accusations intended to get an emotional response.

It's worth noting that it's illegal to walk into a crowded theater and yell, "FIRE!"  The right to free speech only extends to the point that it doesn’t endanger someone else.  Increasingly, sources like Fox News that should be reasonably assumed to be credible are saying or repeating things that are utter fabrications.  Those statements are inciting civil unrest.  Sooner or later someone is going to get hurt, and when that happens, those who screamed "fire" should be held accountable.