Washington Times — Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s challenge to President Obama’s new amnesty ran into trouble Monday as a federal judge took a dim view of his challenge, questioning whether she should get involved in a “legislative-executive branch squabble.”
Judge Beryl A. Howell also questioned a ruling issued by another federal judge in Pennsylvania last week that ruled Mr. Obama’s new policy unconstitutional, with Judge Howell repeatedly calling that a “puzzling” decision that went beyond the case at hand.
But Judge Howell said the president’s program appears to be “an amnesty from being deported,” pushing back against the administration’s claim that its new policy to halt deportations and give work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants is a use of discretion, rather than an amnesty.
The judge heard oral arguments Monday morning but did not issue a ruling, instead promising a written opinion “very shortly.”
Sheriff Arpaio, who did not attend the oral argument in federal district court in Washington, D.C., said his Maricopa County, Ariz., jurisdiction will be hurt by Mr. Obama’s policy because it will mean more illegal immigrants he will end up arresting for state crimes, thus imposing a burden on him. He said that gives him standing to sue to stop the policy.
Judge Howell, however, poked at that argument with Sheriff Arpaio’s lawyer, Larry Klayman, telling him that it is based on speculation about what illegal immigrants will do, rather than on the president’s policy itself. She also seemed skeptical of Sheriff Arpaio’s claim that he personally will suffer because of the Obama policy changes.
The sheriff must show harm for him to be able to challenge the policy — otherwise the courts are supposed to throw the case out for lack of “standing” to sue.
“You’ve got a big standing problem,” Judge Howell told Mr. Klayman.
The judge also said what Mr. Obama has done is at least in the same ballpark as previous presidents and that it hasn’t appeared to violate the separation of powers.
“Congress has in fact sanctioned deferred removal,” she said.
Mr. Klayman urged her to act anyway.
“It doesn’t matter what Bush did in the past, or Clinton. It’s not right, it’s not legal,” he told her.
come on …why question Arpaio’s lawsuit…no one is doing a thing re: POS and his exec amnesty! I am disgusted w/all of this BS, she should not be a judge if she can’t deal with this. Is this the problem w/the GOP as well re: Osama? Cant deal with it?
In any other court the judge would be saying the law is the law, but when you go against Obama, just like him the law can be what ever he says it is and that causes a lot of us to wonder what happened to the laws (The Constitution) that were written to protect this country and its citizens. We, The People are being sold out at every turn with a president who is violating his oath of office on a daily basis!
it’s pretty obvious they got to this judge as always !!!
What if there were 2 Obama’s–one who died in 1982 in Kenya & one who’s (non-existent) because he’s a “Illegitimate-Son” who never Had a “Legal-Father”-! Because (“Bigamy is Forbidden by Law” in the USA-! ) Obama Sr. remained married to 1st Wife, “Kezia” back in Kenya as he signed a ‘worthless marriage-license’ on Feb 2, 1961 to 16 yr-old naïve Ann Dunham-! If “Fraud” or “Misrepresentations” is present at the ‘Signing of any “Legal License or Document”–it renders that “Legal Document”–“Null & Void” at the time it’s signed–(Not when the Fraud’s discovered)
In a “Legal Marriage” the Wife is “Legally-Given” her Husband’s Surname–to create a living “Legal Partnership” & their “Legal Children” born during that “Partnership”–receive & ‘Inherit’ their Father’s Surname-! (“Illegal Children” DO NOT-!) Reference–
“If the Queen’s not ‘Your Mother’–the chance she’ll ever endorse you as the ‘Next King’ is almost ‘Zilch’-!” The president’s ‘real’ “Legal-Name”–is “Barack Dunham”–not Obama-! Everything he signs with the “Wrong Legal Surname”–is “Null & Void”-! It’s
a “Criminal Offense of Fraud” to “Misrepresent Yourself” on any “Legal Documents”-! It’s Wrong to use a Stolen-Name, It’s “ID Theft”–if that Name was never “Legally-Given” to You-! (Clue–because of Obama Sr.’s “Fraud”–Ann Dunham was ‘Never’
“Mrs Obama” because 1st Wife, “Kezia” remained married to Obama Sr. until he died in 1982 in Kenya-! (She’s the only wife present at his Funeral in Kenya-!) Ann’s “Illegal-Son” obtained a surname that Ann Dunham ‘never’ was “Legally-Given’ to her–She was never “Mrs. Obama” & He doesn’t get it either-!
If her “Illegal-Son” signs “Bills of Congress & 2 ‘Supreme-Court’ Appointments’ with the wrong “Legal-Name”–It “Voids” ALL of them-!
Of course, if the case comes before a left wing shitstain, on the bench.
Nope. She’s a leftist hack, in a robe.
If she wasn’t she is now as I said THEY got to her. Meaning if she wasn’t a liberal THEY pressured her into it as that’s the way the Obummer administration operates.
Make that 5 million and one. The usurper in the white house has not shown me a legitimate birth certificate, born in the USA, has he shown you one?
I can bet this judge has read about Loretta Fuddy, the Hawaiian official that released the fraudulent birth certificate. Well Loretta is now dead. This judge is scared fro her life!! I do not blame her. Many that have spoken against obama are now mysteriously dead starting with obama’s gramma, five gay buddies, the house madam, Breitbart, Mrs Fuddy mentioned above, a helicopter full of seal team 6 men, the list goes on and on.