Appeals court drops Joe Arpaio immigration case

CNN ^ | Aug 14, 2015 | Ariane de Vogue

[rickyrikardo]

2016 Washington Nation World Our Team CNN.com

Appeals court drops Joe Arpaio immigration case By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter Updated 4:24 PM ET, Fri August 14, 2015 Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks with a reporter outside city jail in this May 3, 2010. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio speaks with a reporter outside city jail in this May 3, 2010. (CNN)A federal appeals court Friday dismissed a case brought by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio challenging President Barack Obama's contentious executive actions on immigration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a lower court opinion and concluded that Arpaio did not have the legal right -- or standing -- to bring the challenge.

"We conclude that Sheriff Arpaio has failed to allege an injury that is both fairly traceable to the deferred action policies and redressable by enjoining them, as our standing precedents require, " wrote Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee.

Friday's opinion comes as the Obama administration awaits a potentially more serious ruling from another appeals court based in New Orleans. That challenge, in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is brought by Texas and 25 other states. Last February, a district court judge in Texas temporarily blocked the programs from going forward.

[LucyT]

[skeeter]

Most courts are as corrupt as the Maoist in the White House.

When The Won encounters an honest judge, like Andrew Hanan, he simply ignores him.

[SandRat]

Sheriff Joe

[biggredd1]

The obama appointed scumbags [2] said arpaio didn’t have standing. Larry Klayman appealing to supreme court.

[ChildOfThe60s]

SOP for leftist jurists.
Simply claim that anyone they don’t like has no standing. It’s worked pretty well for Obamacare and for Obama’s birth certificate, and pretty much anything that violates the Constitution.

[bgill]

We the People have never had standing against the usurper.

[basil]

Larry Klayman appealing to supreme court.

Well, he’s got that going for him——LOL!

[Rastus]

The Sí! DREAM Court?

[biggredd1]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/14/sheriff-joe-were-going-to-the-supreme-court/

[rusty schucklefurd]

Re: “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a lower court opinion and concluded that Arpaio did not have the legal right — or standing — to bring the challenge.”

So, if a citizen of the United States does not “have standing” when the federal government operates outside the parameters of the Constitution - just WHO DOES have standing???

Who has the right to say to the federal government, NO, that is un-constitutional? Just politicians? Just lawyers? God help us.

[Dacula]

Have no fear - the republican party has your back.

Unfortunately, it’s a knife and they twisted it right into your back.

---

So, if a citizen of the United States does not “have standing” when the federal government operates outside the parameters of the Constitution - just WHO DOES have standing???

[azishot]

What’s it going to take for someone, anyone to have standing?

[tacticalogic]

What’s it going to take for someone, anyone to have standing?

I'm guessing men with rifles. Lots of them.

[GregNH]

I’ll just draw your attention to my tag line...

[FlingWingFlyer]

If these fags don’t think Arapio has standing, then who the hell does? Whoever it is, they sure as hell aren’t doing their jobs and should be fired.

[Farmer Dean]

People get frustrated when corrupt courts and corrupt government limit their options.
Bad things can happen.

[Nero Germanicus]

What you have to do to have standing is demonstrate a “particularized injury.” Good lawyers know how to do that. Sheriff Arpaio could have been a co-plaintiff but he needed someone who was directly injured by Obama’s actions, not a group injury to every citizen, a particular injury to one or several citizens.
The example I like to use of standing is in-laws can’t sue for divorce for their daughter who is being emotionally abused by their son-in-law, only the wife can show “injury-in-fact” and only she has standing to sue for divorce..

[Regulator]

The lead “judge” in this case is Cornelia “nina” Pillard, the woman who was barely approved in the Senate and required Harry Reid to change filibuster rules to get her in.

She is not simply “liberal”. A better description would be Bolshevik, a hardline Red parrot whose court “decisions” are nothing more then Party-Line show trial propaganda.