Conservatives Build Case To Impeach Judge Robard

[A Fellow Seeker]

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.

Actually - if you read the New Testament Jesus was constantly accused by the Priests and Pharisees as breaking Jewish Laws - Healing on the Sabbath, doing miracles on the sabbath, defending an adulterer from stoning. Seems Jesus thought little of legalizm when he helped those less fortunate. So I think He would be on the side of the refugees and against the ban.

As for no one had harm done to them by the ban to contest it - a huge number of companies are harmed. They have employees overseas that can no longer return to the US or visit on business. Your also assuming green card holders have no constitutional rights - where that isn't true.

Our government is based on checks and balances- EVERYTHING has a check. Yes he can set vetting guides which most want increased. Yes he can implose travel bans from countries when a threat is indicated. But can he do so violating other laws regarding equality without showing imminent danger?

If Trump would have bothered to ask DHS and the Acting Attorney General he could have increased vetting, stopped issuing new visas/green cards from some countries- and done it without causing the mess he had.

Why country's where no terrorist attacks have come from but not Saudi Arabia where a lot of the funding from terrorists comes from - or who teach fundamentalist beliefs in school. What imminent threat was there?

Basically - Trump handled the whole mess worse than any bad high school kid would have.

Maybe Trumps should sit down and get some lectures on what restrictions HE has to abide by and get input from federal agency's before things fall apartz

 

[Matthew-three-two]

Just as a general comment, I am pleased that many evangelical leaders have protested Trump's action about refugees, even those who supported his presidency and spoke at his inauguration.

Conservative evangelicals join letter denouncing Trump’s order on refugees

I could say more, but would have to weigh my words more carefully than I have energy to do right now.

 

[PloverWing]

Impeachment is not the appropriate remedy for judges, or presidents, with whom we disagree.

If Judge Robart (or another judge) has made a bad decision -- and judges do make decisions that people disagree with all the time -- then the corrective is the appeals system, ultimately to the Supreme Court if needed.

If Congress or the President make an unconstitutional or illegal decision, then the corrective is the judicial branch of the government; judges decide whether they are acting within the limits of US law.

If the Congress or the President make a decision that's legal and constitutional, but is bad policy, then Congress and the President are checks on each other, and the next election is a check on them both.

For all that I disagree with President Trump, impeachment isn't an option until/unless he does something criminal -- takes a bribe, or some such. Merely making bad political decisions isn't impeachable.

And if Judge Robart has made a bad decision, that isn't impeachable either. He's doing his job as judge, and other elements of the judicial system can decide whether his decision is good or bad.

 

[SteveCaruso]

The judge is merely inserting his leftist dogma into his job.

Very strictly speaking, Robart isn't a "leftist."

He was appointed by George W. Bush with unanimous consent of the Senate (99 yea, 1 absence) and is a Republican.

It pains me to see how much tribalism is coloring this conversation, and how some people are willing to turn on their own because of disagreement.

 

[Armoured]

Didn't take long.

 

[Dave-W]

It pains me to see how much tribalism is coloring this conversation,

Tribalism seems to be the new political reality.

I listen to NPR news most mornings and they have had a lot to say about the ongoing legal battles on this issue. What I have NOT heard (even from the independents and conservatives interviewed) is the existence of that law: Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.

8 U.S. Code § 1735 - Restriction on issuance of visas to nonimmigrants from countries that are state sponsors of international terrorism

Is the news media ignoring this or has every one forgotten about it?

 

[PloverWing]

What I have NOT heard (even from the independents and conservatives interviewed) is the existence of that law: Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.

They may be taking it for granted. As I understand it, citizens of Iran already go through much more scrutiny than citizens of, say, France or Canada before being allowed to enter the US, so this law was already being enforced.

 

[Thursday]

Very strictly speaking, Robart isn't a "leftist."

He was appointed by George W. Bush with unanimous consent of the Senate (99 yea, 1 absence) and is a Republican.

It pains me to see how much tribalism is coloring this conversation, and how some people are willing to turn on their own because of disagreement.

There are many Republican leftists.(fewer than there used to be, though!)

This ruling is nothing but leftist politics. There is no justification in the law, which is quite clear, for blocking Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees. That's his job.

 

[FireDragon76]

Congress creates laws, judges interpret them.

 

[SteveCaruso]

There are many Republican leftists.(fewer than there used to be, though!)

And not many conservative Democrats, either.

This is a problem, not a feature.

This ruling is nothing but leftist politics. There is no justification in the law, which is quite clear, for blocking Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees. That's his job.

Apparently the 3-Judge panel (made up of one leftist one rightist and once centrist) have disagreed with you about Robart's authority to and appropriateness around his decision to stay the order.

This is not a "leftist" thing. This is the Judicial Branch checking our Executive Branch as enshrined in our Constitution.

 

[Thursday]

And not many conservative Democrats, either.

This is a problem, not a feature.



Apparently the 3-Judge panel (made up of one leftist one rightist and once centrist) have disagreed with you about Robart's authority to and appropriateness around his decision to stay the order.

This is not a "leftist" thing. This is the Judicial Branch checking our Executive Branch as enshrined in our Constitution.

This panel consisted of two leftists and one center left judge.

It is a leftist thing. Leftist don't care about the law, the care about results. That's fine for a legislator but not for a judge.

The law is EXPLICITLY CLEAR that president can limit the immigration of any class of alien. ANY CLASS.

 

[SteveCaruso]

This panel consisted of two leftists and one center left judge.

Your idea of "left" and "right" are very poorly calibrated.

 

[imind]

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.

This panel consisted of two leftists and one center left judge.

It is a leftist thing. Leftist don't care about the law, the care about results. That's fine for a legislator but not for a judge.

The law is EXPLICITLY CLEAR that president can limit the immigration of any class of alien. ANY CLASS.

insane...just insane...darn those republican leftists!! to some, anything they disagree with is "leftist", and my, oh my do still others have a pathetic understanding of how our govt works.

good luck with that impeachment!

 

[rjs330]

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.

 

[shadowhunter]

We ask for Muslims to help us discern the difference between radical Muslims and non-radical Muslims.

Correction --- Kuwait already had its own Trump-esque visa ban in place for five Muslim-majority countries

 

[pat34lee]

Very strictly speaking, Robart isn't a "leftist."

He was appointed by George W. Bush with unanimous consent of the Senate (99 yea, 1 absence) and is a Republican.

Neither being appointed by Bush, who is a moderate, or being a Republican make a person conservative or Constitutional. Judge Robart is a left winger who ignored and broke the law in order to stop the President's travel ban.

 

[pat34lee]

insane...just insane...darn those republican leftists!! to some, anything they disagree with is "leftist", and my, oh my do still others have a pathetic understanding of how our govt works.

good luck with that impeachment!

You do like to make up things to attribute to others, don't you?

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. Sorry, but those don't overrule the law, which the President correctly applied in his EO.

 

[pat34lee]

Congress creates laws, judges interpret them.

But judges are not the final arbiters, or they would be kings, not judges. Even the SC is often wrong, which makes limits on their powers just as crucial as those on Congress and the President.

 

[SteveCaruso]

Neither being appointed by Bush, who is a moderate, or being a Republican make a person conservative or Constitutional. Judge Robart is a left winger who ignored and broke the law in order to stop the President's travel ban.

If, under your criteria, George W. Bush was a "moderate" then the last truly conservative, "non-moderate" President we had was Warren G. Harding.

Where it is the current zeitgeist these days to skew the perceived center of the political spectrum, it does not well lend itself to the historical record.

 

[pat34lee]

If, under your criteria, George W. Bush was a "moderate" then the last truly conservative, "non-moderate" President we had was Warren G. Harding.

Actually, Reagan did a fair job of being conservative, tied as he was to a liberal Congress who did not want to get along with him. The first Bush President started out good, then blew everything by accepting the worst single tax increase up to that time. It not only was unnecessary, it made him look like a fool or a pushover by breaking his one major promise, "No new taxes."

Even Democrats such as Kennedy were very conservative compared to today's leftists. "Ask not what your country can do for you..."