Cool Conservative Judge Slaps Down Immigration Reform With Stuff He Read On Twitter
It has been only a few weeks since our Glorious Leader, the Sun in the Eastern Sky, Generalissimo Barack Obama, threw open our borders to the mongrel hordes of non-Americans desperate to come to our country and pick our vegetables for a dollar a day. Luckily, we have brave people in our judiciary willing to stand up to the dictator Obungler and say no mas! Take your humanity and shove it up your culo, pendejo!
Arthur Schwab is a George W. Bush-appointed district court judge in Pennsylvania with a rather colorful history. He had on his docket a criminal case involving an undocumented Honduran immigrant who was deported in 2005, re-entered the country illegally, and then got himself arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. Since Elionardo Juarez-Escobar pled guilty, all Schwab had to do was sentence him to whatever we sentence drunk-driving illegals who get caught: jail time, deportation, rendition to Guantanamo Bay, whatever.
It should be noted that neither side in this case was challenging the president’s new immigration policy. But Schwab decided that in theory, the reforms “may” somehow apply to an immigrant in Juarez-Escobar’s position.
(T)he policy “may” apply to a defendant who was awaiting sentencing of a criminal immigration violation, Judge Arthur Schwab decides that he must determine “whether the Executive Action is constitutional.”
So he combined a whole bunch of #tcot tweets with whatever bile he has been listening to on talk radio and wrote a long ruling denouncing the whole thing. Congrats, Judge! You can expect to be feted with hosannas and blowjobs at the next Federalist Society dinner.
There is no way to underscore how ridiculous this is. A conservative district judge with an ax to grind uses the routine sentencing of an undocumented immigrant caught driving drunk to conclude that the president’s wholly unrelated reforms to our broken immigration system are unsconstitutional. And in doing so, he can’t even really be bothered to explain why.
Notably, Schwab also spends nearly three pages discussing quotes from President Obama which, the judge claims, indicate that Obama once thought his present actions are illegal — even though Schwab eventually admits that these quotes are “not dispositive of the constitutionality of his Executive Action on immigration.” […]
The remainder of Schwab’s brief constitutional analysis concludes that the new policy “Goes Beyond Prosecutorial Discretion — It is Legislation.” Notably, however, Schwab cites no judicial precedents of any kind to support this conclusion.
Pffft. Citing legal precedents in a legal decision is for pussies. Real men just make it up as they go along. (Cf. Bush v. Gore, 2000)
On the other hand, noted constitutional scholar Sean Hannity thinks the judge is correct, saying on his radio show,
It almost could’ve been written by me. He makes the very arguments that I had been making the entire time.
In that case, kill the undocumented immigrants and impeach the Kenyan Usurper.