I see a judge has overruled Trumps immigration orders...

[alismith]

This decision shows that the Left places politics higher than citizens' safety. There is no constitutional basis for their decision. This was done as a political move and nothing more.

No matter what politics a judge follows, when it comes to the law, all judges should come to the same conclusion. All issues should be judged in light of the law.

Where the law isn't clear, then a judge can decide, based on their beliefs, whichever way they want. However, if the law is clearly written and there's no room for doubt, then a judge should rule in favor of the law.

When a judge doesn't do that, and clearly oversteps his authority, then he should be removed from that position. So far, all the judges, involved, should be stripped of their robes, disbarred, and removed from office.

The law Trump used was crystal clear and Trump was well within his authority to issue this EO. The judges went outside of the law with their decisions.

[TEN-32]

The commies will stop at nothing to destroy the USA. The progressive lefties are just stupid partisan useful idiots. Its astonishing to watch as it unfolds. At every turn since the election they have redoubled their efforts with no recognition that it is why they lost. I mean when Jon Stewart and Rahm Emanuel are the voice of reason on the left things are way off kilter.

[Viking350]

There may be a way to get this judge removed if he doesn't follow the law about a President's power to write EO's concerning the muslim invasion. I think Federal Judges can be impeached.

Rush talked about the law on his show, today.

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.

Unfortunately you can't impeach a Federal judge simply because you disagree with their ruling.

[5.56NATO]

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/09/9t...#ixzz4YIyamSki

[alismith]

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.

Unfortunately you can't impeach a Federal judge simply because you disagree with their ruling.

I didn't say they should be impeached because I didn't like their decision. I said they should be impeached for overstepping their authority and deciding against the law as legally created by Congress.

Here's the law, as it is written:

Section 212(f), states: "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."

http://time.com/4656940/donald-trump...on-order-1952/

There is no "wiggle room" in this law. It's clear all the way.

Clearly, they ruled against the law, so their decision should be null and void, and, since they ruled against the law, they should be removed from the bench.

[Viking350]

At the federal level, Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate. In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court determined that the federal judiciary cannot review such proceedings.

Unfortunately you can't impeach a Federal judge simply because you disagree with their ruling.

I didn't say they should be impeached because I didn't like their decision. I said they should be impeached for overstepping their authority and deciding against the law as legally created by Congress.

Here's the law, as it is written:

Section 212(f), states: "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."

http://time.com/4656940/donald-trump...on-order-1952/

There is no "wiggle room" in this law. It's clear all the way.

Clearly, they ruled against the law, so their decision should be null and void, and, since they ruled against the law, they should be removed from the bench.

So which of these grounds for impeachment should they be tried and found guilty of? Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[alismith]

I would go with High Crimes for usurping the power of the Executive and setting policy, which they don't have to power to do. All the can do, legally, is judge a crime, based on the law, not try to set the law. They are exercising power (usurping power) they aren't authorized to have and placing their decision on that power.

As written, 212 (f), was ignored and they reached their judgement based on power they don't have.

[Viking350]

I would go with High Crimes for usurping the power of the Executive and setting policy, which they don't have to power to do. All the can do, legally, is judge a crime, based on the law, not try to set the law. They are exercising power (usurping power) they aren't authorized to have and placing their decision on that power.

As written, 212 (f), was ignored and they reached their judgement based on power they don't have.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

If you were successful, it would be historic.

[alismith]

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order.

If you were successful, it would be historic.

If I were a lawyer, these two aspects look worthy of trying for. They lied about the oath they took, as their decision was in direct conflict with a lawful proclamation of the President and abuse of authority by overstepping their authority by declaring a legal Presidential proclamation illegal, or null.

But, I'm no lawyer, so I don't count.

[Viking350]

While I don't agree with their decision, to suggest they should be impeached is just as groundless as suggestions by the left that President Trump should be impeached

[5.56NATO]

Speaking of "immigrants" and US courts;

Mexicans Vow To Fight Trump By "Jamming US Courts" As Deportations Set To Surge
In a statement by the Mexican Consulate General in Nogales, Arizona, was also present for Garcia de Rayos’ deportation to ensure it was conducted in a "dignified and safe" manner. “The case involving Mrs. Garcia de Rayos illustrates a new reality for the Mexican community living in the United States, facing the most severe implementation of immigration control measures,” the statement says. "For this reason, the entire Mexican community is invited to take precautions and keep contact with its closest consulates to receive the necessary help to face this type of situation."

Mexico’s government recently allocated some $50 million to assist undocumented migrants facing deportation, and President Enrique Peña Nieto has instructed the country’s 50 consulates in the U.S. to defend migrants Luis Videgaray, the Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary, said that Mexico was “going to focus the money on one fundamental objective, which is the defense of the rights of Mexicans. This means legal advice, informational campaigns, the hiring of lawyers where it is necessary,” according to the Washington Post.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...ming-us-courts