Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

[SteveCaruso]

Actually, Reagan did a fair job of being conservative,

If your center point is close to George W. Bush, then Reagan – strictly based on objective criteria like fundraising and policy decisions – was to the left of him. Two examples of rankings with appropriate methodology:

InsideGov, in a scale where negative is liberal and positive is conservative ranks George W. as a 6.8. In contrast, Reagan is a 5.8.

On The Federalist Papers (a conservative website) George W. outranks Reagan as well (~42 points for Reagan, ~48 points for Bush).

Reagan from the "good old days" may feel more conservative, but by all objective metrics, he was not. He was more willing to reach across partisan lines, as well.

Your "center" is nostalgically off-kilter.

 

[pat34lee]

If your center point is close to George W. Bush, then Reagan – strictly based on objective criteria like fundraising and policy decisions – was to the left of him. Two examples of rankings with appropriate methodology:

InsideGov, in a scale where negative is liberal and positive is conservative ranks George W. as a 6.8. In contrast, Reagan is a 5.8.

On The Federalist Papers (a conservative website) George W. outranks Reagan as well (~42 points for Reagan, ~48 points for Bush).

Reagan from the "good old days" may feel more conservative, but by all objective metrics, he was not. He was more willing to reach across partisan lines, as well.

Your "center" is nostalgically off-kilter.

As I said, Reagan had a Democrat controlled Congress. Reagan was a big enough man to reach out to get things done, like our current President. I still believe the people won during his terms, even if the Congress managed to squander much of it. He alone is responsible for ending the Carter malaise years, and the fake oil shortage, not to mention tearing down the Berlin Wall and breaking the back of the Soviet Union. We hadn't had leadership like him since Kennedy, and not afterward. Still holding out hope for President Trump to fill his shoes in the global arena. Time will tell.

 

[imind]

Judge Robarts broke the law. The three court panel ignored the law and wrote an opinion based on politics and inconveniencing the states and people.

whatever you say...i'm sure they will all be impeached soon (not really).

 

[Arcangl86]

Don't you love when random people think they know more about the law then people who have literally been making understanding the law their living for decades?

 

[ken777]

5-4 splits in the Supreme Court suggest judges don't always get it right. It further suggests that judges often decide based on ideological grounds.

 

[pat34lee]

Don't you love when random people think they know more about the law then people who have literally been making understanding the law their living for decades?

It helps when you take the time to actually READ the law.

So what is your basis for chiming in with nothing constructive to add?
Had to throw in an insult because you have no real argument?
At least you didn't call me a phobe or hater.
Not where I can see it, anyway.

 

[pat34lee]

5-4 splits in the Supreme Court suggest judges don't always get it right. It further suggests that judges often decide based on ideological grounds.

That is something you won't get the ideologues in here to admit. That the leftist judges care little for the law when it contradicts their political views.

 

[pat34lee]

whatever you say...i'm sure they will all be impeached soon (not really).

Nope. As your post and the one after shows, too many people
could care less about the truth or the law.

Give us darkness and misery. We don't want anything better.
At least we'll all be the same then.

 

[Arcangl86]

It helps when you take the time to actually READ the law.

So what is your basis for chiming in with nothing constructive to add?
Just felt like showing off your opinion without anything to back it up?

Not only have I taken the time to read the law, I have also read both the order for a TRO and the order denying a stay. What specifically do you fault about the analysis given therein? Do you think that the authorities that were used were incorrect? Do you think that the courts were missing using them? Like i said in one of these threads, if the EO conflicts with the Constitution then it doesn't matter what the enabling statute says. Both the District Court and the 9th Circuit feel that Washington has a good argument to make that it does, though ultimately we won't know until the ruling on the merits.

 

[Arcangl86]

That is something you won't get the ideologues in here to admit. That the leftist judges care little for the law when it contradicts their political views.

And what about the opposite, are you willing to concede that?

 

[pat34lee]

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?

Unlike some judges seem to think, they just can't decide to take a law to court just to see if it's legal. They need cause.

Who is the party or parties that the immigration law caused to be at a loss? Who was wronged enough to bring the matter to court? Not the states. Not the courts. Not aliens. Who?

If I punch you, the state can prosecute me, as champion of the people, but only you could sue me for damages. Who did Trump punch?

 

[pat34lee]

And what about the opposite, are you willing to concede that?

If I see a ruling based on the merits of the law, and not some judges' opinions, yes.

 

[pat34lee]

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

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

If the President begins to abuse his authority on immigration, then Congress passes a law limiting that authority, just as they passed the one giving it to him.

 

[ken777]

Who is the party or parties that the immigration law caused to be at a loss? Who was wronged enough to bring the matter to court? Not the states. Not the courts. Not aliens. Who?

Here are some of those complaining:

Seventeen elite universities including Harvard, Yale and Stanford have joined forces to fight President Donald Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. by refugees and citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries.

The schools say in court papers the ban threatens their ability to recruit students, faculty and scholars from abroad and to “meet their goals of educating tomorrow’s leaders from around the world.”

However, I still do not see how this affects the legality of Trump's temporary travel ban.

 

[Arcangl86]

Here are some of those complaining:

Seventeen elite universities including Harvard, Yale and Stanford have joined forces to fight President Donald Trump’s ban on travel to the U.S. by refugees and citizens of seven mostly Muslim countries.

The schools say in court papers the ban threatens their ability to recruit students, faculty and scholars from abroad and to “meet their goals of educating tomorrow’s leaders from around the world.”

However, I still do not see how this affects the legality of Trump's temporary travel ban.

It establishes standing for the states involved. Doesn't effect the legality of the order.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Who is the party or parties that the immigration law caused to be at a loss? Who was wronged enough to bring the matter to court?

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. So, the State of Washington.

The State of Minnesota was also involved.

Unlike what you may think, a judge can't just say "I don't like this law" and open a case. They don't choose which cases they hear like that.

 

[pat34lee]

It establishes standing for the states involved. Doesn't effect the legality of the order.

I could claim harm by it too. But it wouldn't grant me standing to sue, much as I'd have loved to sue over Obamacare and Obama breaking his oath of office to preserve and protect the Constitution.

 

[pat34lee]

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. So, the State of Washington.

The State of Minnesota was also involved.

Unlike what you may think, a judge can't just say "I don't like this law" and open a case. They don't choose which cases they hear like that.

Ever hear of 'judge shopping'? It's where a radical group looks for the most left-leaning judge to take a case, because a Constitutional judge will either not take it, or will quickly rule against them for lack of legal standing. This is why the Democrats fought so hard to fill the lower courts with liberals during Obama's reign.
Liberals to Go 'Judge Shopping' to Thwart Trump Agenda - Liberty Headlines

 

[SteveCaruso]

Ever hear of 'judge shopping'?

Please demonstrate how the Attorney General of Washington State went "judge shopping," please?

You'd have a case if it was a 3rd party group choosing an odd jurisdiction. But that didn't happen.

 

[pat34lee]

Please demonstrate how the Attorney General of Washington State went "judge shopping," please?

You'd have a case if it was a 3rd party group choosing an odd jurisdiction. But that didn't happen.

Why do you think of all states, Washington took it to court? Why not New York or Maryland?