Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

[ken777]

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

Interesting article. This part really worries me:
"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."

With judges increasingly interpreting the law in accordance with social & political ideology, the anti-Trump hostility could make governing very difficult.

Imagine the kerfuffle if Trump actually enacts an EO on religious freedom. Just the rumor of one has sent the loony left into an attack frenzy.

 

[AACJ]

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

Praying Christians had better be praying that God Almighty plucks up all the remaining liberal judges in the nation, in any way possible.

 

[AACJ]

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

Whim? LOL!

 

[AACJ]

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.

That's just the point, he didn't seriously consider the law.

 

[AACJ]

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.

A positive: this has put inot the spotlight an ongoing problem, that 1) there is no such thing as an unbiased judge, and 2) these liberal judges are a clear and present danger to America's founding principles and values.

 

[imind]

just checking in to see how the impeachment is going...details?

 

[mnphysicist]

That's just the point, he didn't seriously consider the law.

The DOJ didn't make a very convincing argument, statutory conflict exists, and precedence for state standing appears convincing. It seems more than enough to issue a TRO.

You can't selectively pick one statute and ignore others that conflict with it, nor can you throw case law to the wind in favor of a partial reading of the constitution as reason's to impeach a judge.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Oh come on, your blinded your partisanship. Why do you think Washington went to court there and then was joined by other states who were not in their area? It's an established fact that the 9th circuit and that area are filled with liberal judges.

This judge did not base his decision on the law at hand. The law that was established in 1965. He based it on other considerations posed by the states. He ignored the constitutionality of the law.

 

[Armoured]

The OP has laid out a very good case for impeachment on this judge. It's not based upon emotion or even ideology. It based upon fact and law. Something the judge blatantly ignored. Yes a judge can make mistakes in a ruling. But this is so obviously judicial activism as there are too many mistakes to ignore. When this kind of thing occurrs the judge should be impeached. It's one thing to miss something or to err based on an interpretation of a fact or two, but there are far too many things here the judge failed on. He needs to be removed from the bench for such activism.

You being a law expert and all?

 

[SteveCaruso]

Oh come on, your blinded your partisanship.

First it's "you're blinded by your partisanship".

Second, if you think I'm a Democrat, I think you need to check your own partisanship.

Why do you think Washington went to court there

Where else would Washington go to court? It's The State of Washington. Seriously? This is how the State Courts work!

The State of Washington's Attorney General filed with the State of Washington's courts. That's not a bug, it's a feature. In fact, it's the State of Washington's right.

This judge did not base his decision on the law at hand. The law that was established in 1965. He based it on other considerations posed by the states. He ignored the constitutionality of the law.

One can *argue* this (despite the fact that his decision was properly cited) but so far the courts have upheld his reasoning – which is their purview – via a unanimous ruling of a bi-partisan panel (one to the left, one centrist, and one to the right).

The last stop is the Supreme Court. We'll have to wait.