Supremes get ‘personal’ with Sheriff Joe in illegal-alien fight

The motion submitted to the Supreme Court argues the justices are violating their own past practice and evaluating Arpaio’s case based on personal rather than legal reasons.


Attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch wrote the petition that the granting of a hearing in the states’ case but not in Arpaio’s is “in conflict with this court’s well-established practice of relying upon conflicts among the circuits to better inform this court’s considerations – creates the appearance that the court is evaluating and passing judgment upon the parties rather than the legal issues which parties bring before the courts.”


“Indeed, this has already been the message of public commentary. The court gives the impression that it merely disfavors a party before the federal courts, lawfully elected sheriff of one of the nation’s largest counties at four million residents, larger than 22 states, Sheriff Arpaio and/or his legal counsel.”


Arpaio’s case was the first to challenge Obama’s executive actions allowing an estimated 5 millions illegal aliens to remain in the United States.


Ann Coulter is back, more fearless than ever, writing about the untouchable subject in American politics: immigration. Her “Adios, America!” tackles “the disaster that is U.S. immigration policy.”


Arpaio argues that as a sheriff of a county near the Mexican border, his constituents would be adversely impacted by the illegal aliens.


In the Texas case, which was filed two weeks after Arpaio’s case, an appeals court affirmed an injunction against Obama’s actions, prompting the Obama administration to lobby the Supreme Court for review, which it now has promised.


Read More: Supremes get ‘personal’ with Sheriff Joe in illegal-alien fight

1 reply

Comments are closed.