Another ‘Major Victory’ for Klayman That Wasn’t

Another ‘Major Victory’ for Klayman That Wasn’t January 16, 2015

It’s cracking me up watching how the Worldnetdaily’s “journalists” are covering the lawsuit Larry Klayman, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Mat Staver, filed on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio about the immigration orders issued by President Obama. They keep reporting on these “major” victories that are, in fact, just minor procedural matters.

The headline on the front page reads: “Big score for Sheriff Joe in fight vs. Obama.” When you click on the link, the headline on the actual article says: “SHERIFF JOE’S CASE AGAINST AMNESTY ON FAST TRACK: ‘The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws.'” One would imagine, reading this, that the quote comes from the court. Nope, it’s from Klayman himself. Here’s what actually happened:

A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case progresses.

The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.

“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the order.

That is literally all the order says. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Klayman filed this appeal. All this does is set the briefing schedule for the case and it tells the attorneys for both sides what the court expects to see in their briefs to the court on initial motions. That’s it. By no reasonable standard is this a “major score.” They did the same thing at the district court level, trumpeting a routine hearing on a briefing schedule a big win for Arpaio; two weeks later, the case was dismissed.

Browse Our Archives