the administration’s argument that the nearly 5 million applicants would be screened on a “case-by-case” basis
If it’s Executive discretion, then Obama should have to
personally screen EACH AND EVERY case!!!
Already quickly appealed,
- - - - -
“Having reviewed carefully Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling, Klayman, Arpaio’s lawyer, had this to say:
“Judge Howell is clearly wrong in her reasoning and we wasted no time in taking an appeal – only 20 minutes after the ruling was issued. While I respect the judge, she clearly was influenced by her politics, which is pro-Obama. There is no justifiable basis for her decision and I am confident that it will be overturned on appeal – an appeal which is likely to wind up at the Supreme Court. Notwithstanding that the case does present serious questions about the constitutionality of the president’s admittedly “emperor-like actions,” the Sheriff’s office on behalf of the people of Maricopa County do have standing, since they are have already been and continue to be injured by these illegal executive actions.
As just one example presented to the court by the Sheriff, criminals who are illegal aliens are being released back onto the streets by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, as a result of Obama’s amnesty, and they frequently commit new crimes and wind up back in jail, at great expense to the Sheriff’s office. This is clear harm, but the judge chose to downplay it – even though it costs the people of Maricopa County millions of dollars to jail these criminals who should otherwise be deported. In short, we are confident that her ruling will soon be overturned and that this case will proceed to enjoin the president’s illegal and unconstitutional actions. President Obama’s early Christmas present will have to be given back to the American people, who deserve better during this sacred holiday season.” “
The U.S. Judiciary is part of the Praetorian Guard.
Her rationalization of the mass use of “prosecutorial discretion” as being no different then an individual prosecutor deciding whether to pursue a case is hilarious.
Really? Millions are to be examined with a pre determined result - no enforcement, unless some compelling reason to enforce?
Sorta stands the law on its head, right? Isnt it the other way around?
Makes the law completely meaningless, as she interprets it to mean that “you can stay, unless we have a really really good reason to make you leave”.
The whole point of immigration laws is to prevent staying without permission. The Obama memos invert it to put the burdn on the government to prove why they should enforce the law.
The judge in the D.C. case? An Obama appointee, of course.
If you think this isn’t going to create an incentive for more illegals to make a run for the border, you’re kidding yourself.
TM Ping.
The entire battle has been lost for patriots . These activist judges are the end of everything. As long as they can get away with it then it is over.
“Should Congress disagree with the enforcement priorities set out by DHS in the challenged policies, Congress has the ability to appropriate funds solely for removal, and the president cannot refuse to expend funds appropriated by Congress,”
Which the author duplicitously recast as: “Even the Obama appointee acknowledges the new Republican Congress’s ability to tie O’s hands on this, assuming they’re willing to go to the mat and force him to sign a bill with funding limitations on amnesty.”
LOL!
The judge is right however. Obama’s actions can be stopped by simply authorizing enough funds for removal- which the GOPe refuse to do!
It is simple—do NOT recognize federal law!! Make amnesty illegal in your own state!
Is there anything in federal law that requires the states to enforce those federal laws?
I am thinking bout everything from federal restrictions on
guns, counterfeiting, drugs, alcohol, etc.
(not even to mention the myriad of other federal laws re:
how much water my toilet and washing machine uses,
or vehicle emissions, or pulling the tag off my mattress, etc.)
Unless also prohibited by a mirroring state law,
is there anything in federal law that requires the states to enforce those laws?
Could state and local jurisdictions simply refuse to enforce them?
Serious question.
The judge is dishonest.
“... is it time yet, Claire?”
Simply by looking at the language used by the judge in the ruling shows a basic lack of understanding of law or a lapse of ethics; either of which should result in removal of the judge. Note the U.S. Code, the base reference point of law, uses the words “illegal alien” to define a class of people. There is no “undocumented immigrant” class of people known to the U.S. Code. All immigrants have documents, because they did not break the law. The ruling should be treated as a nullity on the grounds the court has no jurisdiction to consider fictional “undocumented immigrants”.
Is this another case? I recall this happening days ago.
“and the president cannot refuse to expend funds appropriated by Congress,”
Huh? Where’d she get that idea?