Hon. Susan R. Bolton See Rating Details
District Judge See Comments
D.Ariz.  
Average Rating:4.1 - 28 rating(s)
Please send me alerts on this judge
E-mail Address:




Add your own rating

E-Mail Address (will not be displayed)
   
Confirm E-mail Address      
Zip
Occupation
Add a comment only

Ratings

*Temperament:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Scholarship:   (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Industriousness:   (1=Not at all industrious,10=Highly industrious)
*Ability to Handle Complex Litigation:    (1=Awful,10=Excellent)
*Punctuality:    (1=Chronic`y Late,10=Always on Time)
*Evenhandedness in Civil Litigation:    (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
*Evenhandedness in Criminal Litigation:   (1=Demonstrates Bias,10=Entirely Evenhanded)
Flexibility In Scheduling   (1=Completely Inflexible,10=Very Flexible)
General Inclination Regarding Bail (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Pre-Trial:   (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
Involvement in Civil Settlement Discussions:   (1=Least Involved,10=Most Involved)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Trial:    (1=Pro-Defense,10=Pro-Government)
General Inclination in Criminal Cases, Sentencing:    (1=Most Lenient,10=Most Harsh)
Typical Discount Off Guidelines for Cooperators:    (1=10%,10=100%)
  Items marked with (*) are averaged into the displayed overall rating
Comments



What others have said about Hon. Susan R. Bolton


Comments


Other

Comment #: 13401
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
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.

Other

Comment #: 13382
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
“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.

Litigant

Comment #: 13283
Rating:1.0
Comments:
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.

Other

Comment #: 12206
Rating:8.0
Comments:
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.

Other

Comment #: 11391
Rating:1.0
Comments:
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.

Other

Comment #: 11343
Rating:2.0
Comments:
Maybe the judge should read the constitution.

Other

Comment #: 11267
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
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 LIKE IN THE CASE OF THE 30,000 TROOPS FOR AFGANISTAN,...AND THE FLIMPSY OFFER OF 1200 FORCE-AID FOR THE SOUTH BORDER AFTER GOV BREWER TALK TO OBAMA.

We all can se that this is only a pose...another...'make believe that some is done'....BUT NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF A SUBSTANCE.

Right , like the american public is going to buy this 'LAST MINUTE PSE -IN-ORDER-TO-LOOK-GOOD'...AND TO ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT THIS ADMININSTRATION CARE ABOUT LAWS, RULES,NATIONAL SECURITY, CITIZEN PROTECTION...etc,etc,etc,

The TRUTH IS THAT THE OBAMA GANG IS IN A VERY VERY PRECARIOUS SITUATION FOR WHAT WAS SWORN UNDER OATH FOR PROTECTION OF CONSTITUTION AND AMERICAN SAFETY IS/WAS JUST A FALLACY...

... RESULTING FORM THE FRUDULENT AND INSIDIOUS DECEPTIVE TACTICS BY THE GROUP BEHIND THE 'ILLEGAL IMPLANTING OF OBAMA INTO 'PRESIDENCY'.

And so it goes.

Daniel Cabrera
Merrillville,Indiana

Other

Comment #: 10776
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
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

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 10765
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
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.

Other

Comment #: 10758
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
There MUST be consideration of the UTTER FAILURE of the federal government to do their job. Even if the preemption arguments are accepted on their faces, they should only apply when the federal government is actually DOING THEIR JOBS with respect to the preempted areas. The federal government clearly IS NOT, which is why SEVERAL STATES are indeed trying to take up the slack. The court needs to take this into account.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 10748
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Dear Other Posters,

I suggest you actually read the opinion. And then read the Constitution, specifically the SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

You all probably chide judges for making policy decisions in general but then set about ridiculing them for not making the POLICY choice you want made.

There''s no way around the Supremacy Clause and the rest of the Constitution. No legitimate lawyer thought this law had a chance. Get real. Sad how ignorant you all are.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 10733
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Well...it is now official. Illegal immigrants have more rights than we do. We have to show ID if a policman asks me to. We have to pay taxes. We have to pay for medical treatment and emergency rooms. We cannot stand on street corners looking for work..we''d be pulled in for prostitution or loitering. They can do whatever they want because the politicians are scared of the illegal immigration supporters. Disgusting!

I live in NY and there are millions of them here too.

We should all write to Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Joe to tell them we support them.

Other

Comment #: 10730
Rating:1.0
Comments:
I am horrified that you ruled in favor of the ILLEGAL Immigrants. Apparently, you don''t live in a neighborhood where hoardes of them hang out on street cormers and refuse to speak English. How nice to live in an ivory tower and make bad decisions concerning the real Americans.

You are just another self-serving mamby pamby politician pandering to the illegal immigrants so the Democrats can swing the Hispanic vote.

SHAME ON YOU! YOU SHOULD STEP DOWN!

Other

Comment #: 10725
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Activist Judge, Arizona injunction complete wrong, how can you punish a State for following a mirror image of federal law? Clinton appointee, I see!
Just open the borders and let them all in, no one is illegal in AZ

Other

Comment #: 10703
Rating:1.0
Comments:
It is a ruling like yours that makes a mockery of our judicial system.

The infamous Cardinal Richelieu during the 1600''s was alleged to have said, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." You have hung the citizens of Arizona. Shame on you.

You are destroying the balance of power and doing what the hated Richelieu did.

Other

Comment #: 10674
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
A well reasoned and thoughtful verdict based on Constitutional law. Sorry, right-wingers and so-called patriots you can''t have it both ways. You support the Constitution or you don''t.

Other

Comment #: 10667
Rating:1.0
Comments:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 453

Other

Comment #: 10569
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I live in NC and in the last few years countless lives have been lost at the hands of illegal immigrants. There is nothing racial about this law. If I am speeding and get stopped I have to show my legal drivers license. Why do they think they should not have to show their legal ID? If they are not legal they should not be allowed to break the law, just as I a legal US citizen wouldn''t be allowed to. What part of ILLEGAL don''t these people understand? Also the legal immigrants that have gone through the legal process OBJECT to amnesty and a pass for illegals.
Your honor, I pray that you will stand with the majority of the American people who are law abiding citizens and who want to keep our country safe as the porous borders are a national security issue. Thank you for doing the job you were put there to do and upholding the Constitution of the United States of America.

Other

Comment #: 10530
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Any judge that would allow a foreign country to tag onto a lawsuit regarding Arizona''s law is not only incompetent but un American.

Other

Comment #: 10496
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Bolton uses conjecture. Believes documents speak for themselves without proof of evidence. Ignores the written law. Refuses to hear cases that have standing. Prefers to punish the innocent and justify financial enrichment for the guilty.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 10065
Rating:3.5
Comments:
Bolton is a nightmare. She is churlish, mercurial, and lazy. She fails to rule on pretrial motions, then denies them after a verdict. Her pro-Government bias is palpable.

Litigant

Comment #: 9984
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Susan R. Bolton is by far THE WORST judge that I have ever seen. A pro se litigant doesn't have a chance in her courtroom. She allows the opposition (attorneys) to get away with breaking every rule in the book. She is clearly biased and, at the very least, needs to be sanctioned.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 9792
Rating:2.5
Comments:
Horrible judge who makes her mind up one day one and contorts the facts to support her own biased opinions. Appeal her every time you can to the Ninth Circuit and maybe they will know via her reversal rate she is incompetant. Shame om Kyl and Clinton for giving us this level of ineptitude. Not qualified to be a JP

Criminal Defense Lawyer

Comment #: 9196
Rating:1.0
Comments:
Susan Boilton makes wrongful judgments unsuitable for a federal judge that tend to undermine confidence in the judiciary.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 8540
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
The worst. She dismissed an action litigated for 18 months for lack of federal jurisdiction. We prevailed on appeal, but thereafter settled because she let it be known that she was going to ensure that an alum from her law school ultimately prevail. She is dismissive of counsel, intemperate and biased. The worst in the District of Arizona and an example why Article III should be amended to require direct and periodic election of district judges.

Litigant

Comment #: 7863
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
Judge Susan R. Bolton picks her favorite side based on her interest and then contorts her findings to fit her desired outcome. She is devoid of intellectual honesty. She makes wrongful judgments unsuitable for a federal judge that tend to undermine confidence in the judiciary.

Civil Litigation - Private

Comment #: 7852
Rating:Not Rated
Comments:
I was shocked by Judge Bolton’s rulings in the civil cases. Surely if the Ninth Circuit had access to everything that goes on in the cases. they would be shocked to know how Judge Bolton is actually handling litigation and her reversal rating would be worse. Her rulings are outrageous. Judge Bolton makes up her mind before hearing the facts. There is some disconnect between this judge and reality. She likes to listen to one side of parties. She uses her own speculation to defend one side of parties. Judge Bolton is imperious, biased, arrogant, sarcastic and inappropriate and should be sanctioned.