District
38 reviews
A nightmare if she doesn’t like you. She’s terrible and picks based on lawyers she likes, which are always the big $$ rich people lawyers. She prefers wealthy polished litigants too. The rest of us be damned. Avoid if you can. Her court is not for those who happen to exist as regular people.
Inflexible Judge who bases decisions on her approval or disapproval of lawyers. Very bad Judge.
The comments on this page by Judge Bolton are from a pack of trolls who apparently admired Joe Arpaio. They have no relevance whatsoever to her judicial skills. And one of them states a complete lie about her: that "no one in Arizona has any respect for her." That's a complete falsehood because Judge Bolton was very well-regarded as a superior court judge, and her reputation has carried over into her federal career. To the contrary, she is very well-known in the legal community of Phoenix for being even-handed and fair. I say this as a lawyer who has both won and lost arguments before her. Even when I have lost, I may have disagreed with her reasoning but her reasoning was nonetheless sound.
Mr. Arpario's verdict was incorrect; Ms. Bolton acted out of "her party emotion", not with legal duty! To be a "legal" immigrant, there are IMMIGRATION LAWS, to which YOU do not adhere - why? BUT you prosecute a Sheriff WHO DOES? Lady YOU need to BE REMOVED, YOU cannot do your job; you seem to side with those who do break the law, like Clinton crime family, ofama & his minions.
I am appalled that United States Judges like yourself are working for illegal immigrants instead of Americans. You convict a man who is trying to enforce the law of the land that you choose to not enforce. You are an employee of the American people not citizens of foreign countries. You should be ashamed!
The judge acted appropriately refusing to expunge Mr. Arpaio's guilty verdict. He has shown no remorse, contrition or even a basic understanding of the legal matters which led to conviction. The President's intemperate pardon notwithstanding, there is no strong rationale to pretend the crime did not occur. THANK YOU JUDGE BOLTON
This judge has arrogantly and self-righteously exceeded her judicial authority smugly defying the expressly presidential authority to pardon citizens of his choosing. She is rogue and must be removed and made an example of. She is not trustworthy since grandstanding seems more important to her than the law.
Sheriff Arpiro. I cannot believe you have the gall to ignore the Pres., (any Pres.) please list how many times you brought charges against Obama, how you fought for his pardon of the treason of now call Chelsea Manning, prosecution of the Clinton's etc. I must have missed all those. But ignoring the Pres. IT IS TIME FOR YOU TO RESIGN!
She apparently does not know her job is not to make laws, it is ONLY to enforce them. Her bias does not belong in a courtroom. Judges should be vetted before they can push their own personal agendas on others.
Coward and feckless, quixotic judge. Should live in Hawaii, the west coast of Baltimore. No one in az has any respect for her.
I hope anyone in Arizona will not allow her to stay a judge.
In a case involving a sexual predator who assaulted a young girl, the defendant agreed to a plee bargain of a 10 year federal prison sentence. Susan Bolton decided to unilaterally change the sentence to 7 years. What makes this even more egregious is the fact that she allowed the 13 yr old victim and her father to get up before the court and give victim impact statements, who argued for a sentence greater than 10 years, when she clearly had already decided to ignore the agreed upon plea bargain for a lessor sentence of 7 years. Shame on you Judge Susan Bolton, you showed no compassion for the victim and the family, and you gave a serious sexual predator a lessor sentence than the one he himself agreed to.
“Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face. “Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.” In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.
I worked with Harvard law firms for 20 years as a legal assistant. If I decide to file a case in Federal Court, I at least respect the Court enough to draw up a meritorious complaint. The case I filed was controversial, and contained a lot of Constitutional questions. I'm forced to take this case to the 9th Circuit because honestly, Judge Bolton ignored all the Constitutional points of law without even allowing me to present evidence. The entire case was dismissed on a dispositive motion that didn't even address any of the Constitutional questions. No disrespect, but I seriously do not understand how a Federal judge can ignore the Constitution and citations from the Supreme Court. Maybe I'm a dinosaur from the past gone by, who misplaces their beliefs in the courts. Maybe the Constitution really has gone by the wayside.
If some of the racists below actually read Judge Bolton's careful and studied decision, their petulant outbursts might be less laughable. Comment # 11391 below, claiming that she lacked jurisdiction in this case, only shows the lack of basic reading skills among the anti-immigrant racists on this site: Art III s. 1 states that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Art III s. 2 then states that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States." Thus, an inferior federal court clearly has jurisdiction over the challenge to SB 1070 unless something else in the constitution takes that jurisdiction away. Art III s. 2 also says "In [those] cases in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction." But it does not say that the Supreme Court has "exclusive" original jurisdiction. The Framers used the word "exclusive" throughout the document. Clearly, if they intended the Supreme Court to have exclusive jurisdiction here, they would have said as much. Unfortunately, poorly reasoned posts below suggest that the Constitution should be bent and stretched to accommodate their hateful views. Happily, Judge Bolton did not buy it.
Did Judge Susan Bolten have authority to hear the case of SB 1070. Under the constitution Article III, Sec. 2 says the Suprene Court has Juristiction over the state, not the Federal Courts. She had no jurisdiction that involves a state. She had no legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.
Maybe the judge should read the constitution.
JUDGE BOLTON, THIS IS RELATRED TO YOU AS WELL; IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, READ,... IF NOT, DONT' READ; "OBAMA DECLINES TO ACCEPT RICK PERRY'S LETTER" ------------------- This current governmental admininstration (THE OBAMA GANG) does not have any interest to protect this country...all they present is just FAKE! ----------------- THIS WAS SENT TO EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON..WHITE HOUSE...WHITE HOUSE, CONGRESS,SENATE,SPECIFIC POLITICIANS(corrupted and others that seems not so corrupted),TO RADIO TALK SHOWS, TV CABLE NEWS NETWORKS, ROTATIVES PUBLICATION (INCLUDING THE YELLOW PRESS TABLOIDS)...SUCH AS, THE NEW YORK TIMES, HUFFINGTON POST, LA TIMES, NEWSWEEK...ETC.....AND ALL OVER THE NET TO MANY MANY PLACES. So, if interested , then just read; --------------------------------------------------- EMERGENCY BORDER SECURITY BILL!?...MY FOOT! DO YOU GUYS (OBAMA GAGNSTERS) THINK THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS? ========================== House Approves $600M For More Drones, Agents at U.S.-Mexican Border Published August 10, 2010 WASHINGTON -- In a rare moment of bipartisanship Tuesday, the House approved $600 million to pay for more unmanned surveillance drones and about 1,500 more agents along the troubled Mexican border. Getting tougher on border security is one of the few issues that both parties agree on in this highly charged election season. But lawmakers remain deeply divided over a more comprehensive approach to the illegal immigration problem, and it's unclear if Congress will go beyond border-tightening efforts. Some House members urged the Senate to act quickly, without waiting for Congress's summer recess to end in mid-September. It was unclear Tuesday whether that would happen. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/10/house-approves-m-drones-agents-mexican-border/ http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/node/3633 Who?...WHO? IS GOING TO SWALLOW THIS ONE?....WE THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?...FAT CHANCE! This is another STINGY MOVE
Judge Bolton is the most humanistic and courageous judge, who could see the pain, complexities and bigotry exercised by the Arizona state Admn and judiciary to impose such an atrocious, inhumane, stupid legilation to satisfy their sadistic & bigotted designs
Misleading to suggest that this site is where "judges are judged". Judges make reasoned decisions based on statutes and precedential decisions. Many of the postings at this site appear not to be reasoned. Rather, they are simply articulations of the writers'' biases, at least with respect to the Judge Bolton''s decision in the Arizona immigration law case. Many posters at this site simply believe that a decision that they disagree with indicates that the judge is a bad judge. That is not judging. That is PREJUDICE. The presumption, which could be rebutted by actual facts, is that Judge Bolton, a life tenure appointee to the federal bench under article III of the Constitution, takes her job very seriously and endeavors to live up to her enormous responsibilities. Every criticism of her (20 or so?) that I read was based on disagreement with the outcome of the immigration law case. But none of those posts provided any legal basis to support why the judge''s decision was wrong. Unfounded criticism is not "judging." The people attacking Judge Bolton on this basis actually show their disrespect for the Constitution and the country that so wisely adopted it over 200 years ago.