South Carolina legislative supporters of Arizona's new immigration law say they will continue to push for a similar law in the Palmetto State despite a judge's ruling striking down key portions.

South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell vowed to continue with plans to introduce legislation when the General Assembly returns to work in January. He said Wednesday's ruling is merely the first step in a lengthy legal process. "Like Arizona's legislators, we are tired of Washington's failure to act," McConnell said.

"We can't rely on the federal government any more. That's why states are being forced to do whatever they can to fight illegal immigration. The federal government fiddles while Rome burns and then sues states who try to throw water on the flames."

Hours before the Arizona law was set to take effect, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton suspended key provisions, including the heart of the statute that would give police the authority to check suspects' immigration status during routine stops if there was reasonable suspicion that the suspects were in the country illegally.

The decision, which is temporary until the full legal dispute is aired, also blocks sections of the law that would prohibit illegal immigrants from seeking work and require documented immigrants to carry their registration papers.

The Obama administration had challenged the new law in court and many states, including South Carolina, have backed Arizona in legal briefs.

Rep. Harry Ott, leader of South Carolina House Democrats, said he doesn't know how South Carolina lawmakers can push through an Arizona-like law when the state cannot afford to pay for the enforcement of what it has now.

"Unless we're willing to put money in the budget to deal with people who might be here illegally who have broken some other law, I don't know how you are going to start enforcing just the immigration part," he said.

"Nobody's supporting people who are here illegally. But I think we should enforce the laws that are on our books now first and see where that goes."

Karen Floyd, chairwoman of the South Carolina Republican Party, said in a statement that the ruling is evidence that the "arrogance of the Democratic-controlled Washington has gotten out of hand."

"The federal government is delegated its power by the states ... not the other way around," she said. "They intruded on states' rights when they pushed socialized medicine on our nation and now they're doing it again with immigration."

The law has widespread support in the South Carolina General Assembly and versions of it were filed late in this year's session. Because a new session begins in January, backers of the bills would have to file them again to be considered.

Sen. Larry Grooms, a Berkeley County Republican who sponsored such a bill in the Senate this year, said what he files next year will depend on the courts.

"I'm not going to sponsor legislation that the court has said is unconstitutional," he said. "But if we find out there legal problems with what Arizona has enacted, we'll be able to work around it."

Grooms said a test vote in the Senate on a budget provision that was similar to the Arizona law garnered more than two-thirds support, a sign that such a measure would pass the Legislature.

Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, another proponent of immigration reform, said the issue will largely be molded by what federal courts, both district and appeals, decide.

"That would probably bear on our thinking going forward next year," he said. "But that has no precedential value in South Carolina unless there is a clear and obvious ruling made in a way that we don't think we could prevail on up to the United States Supreme Court."

Martin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said legislation similar to the Arizona law, absent any court ruling striking it down, would be a priority next year. He said McConnell has said he intends to hold public hearings statewide on the legislation and to study its legality.

State Attorney General Henry McMaster, who has joined with other states' attorneys general in a brief supporting the law, also has told South Carolina lawmakers in an opinion that he believes such a law could be successfully defended in court from any constitutional challenges.

McMaster noted in his 14-page opinion that the South Carolina bill specifically forbids racial profiling and discrimination.

Opponents of the bill have complained that it would produce racial profiling and polarize the state as the law has in Arizona, where law enforcement agencies had different ideas on how to enforce it hours before it was to go into effect.