Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

pat34lee · Feb 16, 2017

"The question of whether the President's EO was lawful or not is a wrong question.

The right question that should have been asked was whether Judge Robart had the authority to issue the TRO and whether the said TRO was legally binding to the President.

Suppose that Judge Robart had the authority to issue his TRO against the sitting president. There are about 2,700 federal district judges in the U.S., and if Judge Robart had the authority to issue his TRO, all the other 2,700 federal district judges would have the authority to issue a TRO against any President's EO as well. Should only a hundred of them decide to exercise such an authority broadly, they would de facto incapacitate the President to the point that he or she would not be able to preform most of his or her core constitutional duties."
Articles: On Trump's Immigration Executive Order, Wrong Question

SteveCaruso · Feb 16, 2017

pat34lee said:
Why do you think of all states, Washington took it to court? Why not New York or Maryland?

Are you saying that they are not afforded the same Constitutionally guaranteed rights of redress as other States? Or do you sincerely believe that they are somehow disqualified from that?

pat34lee · Feb 17, 2017

SteveCaruso said:
Are you saying that they are not afforded the same Constitutionally guaranteed rights of redress as other States? Or do you sincerely believe that they are somehow disqualified from that?

As I said, judge shopping. The various Democrats involved decided which court to take the case to, which was the one most likely to favor their side, not the law.

Arcangl86 · Feb 17, 2017

pat34lee said:
As I said, judge shopping. The various Democrats involved decided which court to take the case to, which was the one most likely to favor their side, not the law.

Or maybe the AG of the State of Washington decided to bring this action on their own. Not everything is a vast Democratic conspiracy. It was brought in the federal court that held the capital of the State of Washington.

SteveCaruso · Feb 17, 2017

pat34lee said:
As I said, judge shopping. The various Democrats involved decided which court to take the case to, which was the one most likely to favor their side, not the law.

You're not allowed to redefine what "judge shopping" means. A State's Attorney General categorically cannot.

Dave-W · Feb 17, 2017

SteveCaruso said:
Are you saying that they are not afforded the same Constitutionally guaranteed rights of redress as other States? Or do you sincerely believe that they are somehow disqualified from that?

Who says any State in the Union has the authority to challenge in court an EO from the Prez?

SteveCaruso · Feb 17, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
Who says any State in the Union has the authority to challenge in court an EO from the Prez?

It's called checks and balances and has something to do with how our three branches of government were designed by our Founding Fathers so that one branch never has too much power.

Or have you read the Constitution?

Dave-W · Feb 17, 2017

Have any of these US court decisions (both those already passed and those in the works) take into account the 1965 immigration act or 8 U.S. Code § 1735? Those laws are already on the books.

Dave-W · Feb 17, 2017

SteveCaruso said:
Or have you read the Constitution?

Yes I have. I see nothing in there to cover this situation.

SteveCaruso · Feb 17, 2017

DaveW-Ohev said:
Have any of these US court decisions (both those already passed and those in the works) take into account the 1965 immigration act or 8 U.S. Code § 1735? Those laws are already on the books.

The issue, if I remember correctly, is one of Constitutionality – which would supersede any potential problems with lesser laws. Because of that this will be headed to Supreme Court.

imind · Feb 17, 2017

pat34lee said:
Why do you think of all states, Washington took it to court? Why not New York or Maryland?

*sigh*

how is that impeachment coming?

Hank77 · Feb 17, 2017

Thursday said:
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

But that was not what the order did. It shut out US citizens and permanent green card holders as well.

ken777 · Feb 17, 2017

pat34lee said:
Why do you think of all states, Washington took it to court? Why not New York or Maryland?

Because Bob Ferguson is the A-G and the court is highly politicized. This spiteful man is celebrating the financial ruin of Barronelle Stutzman the 72 year old Christian grandmother who owns Arlene's Flowers (Feb 16 ruling). Hopefully President Trump will issue an EO protecting the religious freedom of such people.

ken777 · Feb 17, 2017

Hank77 said:
But that was not what the order did. It shut out US citizens and permanent green card holders as well.

So if the new EO addresses those issues, do you still think it will be subjected to court action?

SteveCaruso · Feb 17, 2017

ken777 said:
So if the new EO addresses those issues, do you still think it will be subjected to court action?

If the EO doesn't violate the Constitution then there shouldn't be a problem.

ken777 · Feb 17, 2017

SteveCaruso said:
If the EO doesn't violate the Constitution then there shouldn't be a problem.

LOL ... rights under the Constitution are very 'malleable'.

Hank77 · Feb 17, 2017

ken777 said:
So if the new EO addresses those issues, do you still think it will be subjected to court action?

I don't know what a judge may see or do. I'm not a legal expert, but I do think the Pres. has the authority to ban new immigration if he can show that it is necessary for the protection of the country.

ken777 · Feb 17, 2017

Hank77 said:
I don't know what a judge may see or do. I'm not a legal expert, but I do think the Pres. has the authority to ban new immigration if he can show that it is necessary for the protection of the country.

I suspect there is something more going on here. The anti Trump hostility is so intense that every action is criticized & condemned simply because he proposed it.

Thursday · Feb 18, 2017

Hank77 said:
But that was not what the order did. It shut out US citizens and permanent green card holders as well.

That is not true.

pat34lee · Feb 18, 2017

SteveCaruso said:
It's called checks and balances and has something to do with how our three branches of government were designed by our Founding Fathers so that one branch never has too much power.

Or have you read the Constitution?

Read it. Where do you think it mentions limits on EOs? This is not about limits on powers. If this judicial order holds, the President has virtually NO power if the judges decide to keep interfering with his Constitutionally defined duties. Read the article I linked to in a previous post.
Articles: On Trump's Immigration Executive Order, Wrong Question

Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

Messianic

Translator

Messianic

Newbie

Translator

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Translator

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Translator

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Translator

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Well-Known Member

"to live is Christ, and to die is gain"

Well-Known Member

Messianic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency