Judge blasts court rule forcing her to dismiss Arpaio case
Asks 'what if the chief executive decides not to faithfully execute the laws?'
August 15, 2015

An appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s lawsuit against the Obama administration over his amnesty-by-executive-order plan because the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined he didn’t have “standing” to bring a complaint.

That is, he couldn’t identify a specific and personal injury that he would suffer because of the amnesty.

But one judge said it’s time for changes.

“Today we hold that the elected sheriff of the nation’s fourth largest county, located mere miles from our border with Mexico, cannot challenge the federal government’s deliberate non-enforcement of the immigration laws,” wrote Judge Janice Rogers Brown.

She said while precedent requires the appeals court to uphold the dismissal of the case, “I write separately to … note the consequences of our modern obsession with a myopic and constrained notion of standing.”

She explained “what the government views as permissible prosecutorial discretion, Sheriff Arpaio views as a violation of the president’s duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ … and the non-delegation doctrine.”

His concerns, Brown wrote, “run deeper than a difference in philosophy or politics. He claims [Obama's amnesty] impose clear and ‘severe’ harms on his ability to protect the people of Maricopa county. In particular, he argues that deferring removal proceedings and providing work authorizations to undocumented immigrants ‘harmed … his office’s finances, workload and interfered with the conduct of his duties…’”

Brown said it’s logical for the sheriff to believe he has a case. But Brown wrote that the case had to be dismissed because of precedent, even though “the relevant judicial guideposts do not exactly ‘define standing ‘with complete consistency.”

......................................


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/judge-blasts-...ow4Ox6gkjU35.99