Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

[Original Happy Camper]

Yesterday, we called for the impeachment of Federal District Judge James L. Robart, who on February 3, 2017 issued a temporary restraining order
Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

Seeing as how this judge never ruled on any point of Law in his ruling, it is appropriate that he be reviewed and if found to have ruled without considering the laws that would cover the issues in the complaint he should be impeached. Judges are suppose to rule on the law not on their feelings or beliefs.
INHO he is not qualified to pass judgement on any future cases as he is not considering what the law that was passed by congress in 1952 base on the opinion of the Supeme Court case dealing with immigration/refugees in 1948

 

[High Fidelity]

Isn't it his job to ensure actions by the government are constitutional? If so, impeaching everyone that challenges that probably isn't a great precedent to introduce unless you really want a dictatorship in the making.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Isn't it his job to ensure actions by the government are constitutional? If so, impeaching everyone that challenges that probably isn't a great precedent to introduce unless you really want a dictatorship in the making.

go through the Judges order He never mentioned this "Moreover, almost each component of the immigration order is double covered by another statute. Under existing law unanimously passed by Congress (8 U.S. Code § 1735), any foreign national from state sponsors of terror (at the time of the original law in 2002, that included five of the seven countries on Trump’s list) are not to be granted visas forever (not just for 90 days, as Trump has proposed). "

It is the job of the judge to look at the law and apply all applicable laws to the lawsuit to see if it follows the law.

Example: Jesus loves every human being that has lived, however there is a book that is opened in Heaven that all will be judged from using the Law as the basis of that Judgment. Some will be found wanting and they will be lost. Jesus said if you love me Keep my commandments.

Judge Robart did not do his job bu applying existing law thus showing that he is incompetent to hold that position.

 

[Thursday]

Isn't it his job to ensure actions by the government are constitutional? If so, impeaching everyone that challenges that probably isn't a great precedent to introduce unless you really want a dictatorship in the making.

Only judges that don't follow the law, like this Judge. The law clearly gives the president the right to determine immigration and refugee policy as he sees fit. There is no constitutional issue for the ban. The judge is merely inserting his leftist dogma into his job. That's impeachable.

 

[Arcangl86]

If the judge is wrong, the decision will be overturned by the appellate court. It's how our system works. You can't impeach a judge just because you don't agree with his decision.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

If the judge is wrong, the decision will be overturned by the appellate court. It's how our system works. You can't impeach a judge just because you don't agree with his decision.

This is such a blatant disregard for the law and that is an impeachable issue as he is supposed to rule on the legality of the issue not the issue itself based on his feelings or belief

Like I said what would heaven be like if Jesus followed the example of this Judge and ruled on his feeling instead of the Law, we would have sin in heaven and we know where that leads.

For sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is such a blatant disregard for the law and that is an impeachable issue as he is supposed to rule on the legality of the issue not the issue itself based on his feelings or belief

Like I said what would heaven be like if Jesus followed the example of this Judge and ruled on his feeling instead of the Law, we would have sin in heaven and we know where that leads.

For sin is the transgression of the law.

Well he hasn't even ruled on the legality of the issue yet to begin with. All he did was issue a temporary restraining order while he waits for the case to proceed on the merits. In his legal judgement he feels that there are important questions of law that need to be decided in this case.

 

[redleghunter]

Isn't it his job to ensure actions by the government are constitutional? If so, impeaching everyone that challenges that probably isn't a great precedent to introduce unless you really want a dictatorship in the making.

What if a judge is acting outside his/her constitutional mandate?

Same applies. We then have tyranny of the judicial branch.

 

[pat34lee]

Well he hasn't even ruled on the legality of the issue yet to begin with. All he did was issue a temporary restraining order while he waits for the case to proceed on the merits. In his legal judgement he feels that there are important questions of law that need to be decided in this case.

He had no legal basis to accept the case. And the states had no basis to bring the matter to court. This is all political grandstanding and everyone involved, from judge to state AG's to governors who ordered the suits, need to be impeached.

 

[Arcangl86]

He had no legal basis to accept the case. And the states had no basis to bring the matter to court. This is all political grandstanding and everyone involved, from judge to state AG's to governors who ordered the suits, need to be impeached.

What part of the motion to grant a TRO do you think is insufficient? I'll be amazed if you can answer because I haven't been able to find a copy of the motion anywhere.
ETA: My bad. I read your post improperly. But with that in mind, what aspect of the complaint do you think lacked a sufficient cause of action?

 

[Thursday]

Well he hasn't even ruled on the legality of the issue yet to begin with. All he did was issue a temporary restraining order while he waits for the case to proceed on the merits. In his legal judgement he feels that there are important questions of law that need to be decided in this case.

He had no basis for issuing the restraining order. It was a cheap political stunt.

It’s hard to get around the relevant federal immigration law, which says, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Sorry: Trump’s immigration order is totally legal | New York Post

 

[Arcangl86]

He had no basis for issuing the restraining order. It was a cheap political stunt.

It’s hard to get around the relevant federal immigration law, which says, “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Sorry: Trump’s immigration order is totally legal | New York Post

And how does that interact with the rest of the INA or the Constitution? Laws need to be understood in context.

 

[Thursday]

And how does that interact with the rest of the INA or the Constitution? Laws need to be understood in context.

The law is explicit. There is nothing to debate.

 

[Arcangl86]

The law is explicit. There is nothing to debate.

What does it mean for the President to "find that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States"? Does the President just need to declare such a funding, or does there need to be some sort of process that needs to be followed? That's just one question I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Thursday]

What does it mean for the President to "find that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States"? Does the President just need to declare such a funding, or does there need to be some sort of process that needs to be followed? That's just one question I can think of off the top of my head.

It's the president's call, clearly. It means that what he finds is legal. It's not your business or the business of the court.

 

[Arcangl86]

It's the president's call, clearly. It means that what he finds is legal. It's not your business or the business of the court.

Except it's not clear that's what it means. While traditionally the President is given a lot of latitude when it comes to foreign affairs, I doubt that Congress would have allowed that kind of ability without any accountability at all.

 

[pat34lee]

What part of the motion to grant a TRO do you think is insufficient? I'll be amazed if you can answer because I haven't been able to find a copy of the motion anywhere.
ETA: My bad. I read your post improperly. But with that in mind, what aspect of the complaint do you think lacked a sufficient cause of action?

In order to bring the case to court, someone had to be an aggrieved party. They have to suffer some real damage, not just allege the law is unConstitutional.

 

[pat34lee]

Except it's not clear that's what it means. While traditionally the President is given a lot of latitude when it comes to foreign affairs, I doubt that Congress would have allowed that kind of ability without any accountability at all.

Congress is that accountability.

 

[Arcangl86]

In order to bring the case to court, someone had to be an aggrieved party. They have to suffer some real damage, not just allege the law is unConstitutional.

That is true. Probably why Washington alleged an injury. That part is actually addressed in the TRO.

Congress is that accountability.

And how do they keep the President accountable if all he needs is his whim to determine immigration policy?

 

[Calminian]

Any branch of the government can be impeached, and I think it's a good idea to consider impeaching bad judges. There shouldn't be any untouchables in our government.