Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't love reality voting for the lesser of two evils. I voted for Trump but he has been floundering to accomplish much since he has been in office.
Because the left has made it a goal to obstruct, delay, distract in any way that they can. They'll fabricate reasons, if they need to.
Example is the recent ruling of an EO that simply says that enforcement of the laws in place will begin. This liberal judge decides that the President is not legitimate and since in his mind he is not, then any EO he issues is also not legitimate. Not much legal basis there.
This judge has some serious problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
You keep citing to Jeanne Pirro as if her opinion is the be-all and end-all when it comes to federal court jurisdiction. She's welcome to her opinion, but first, she's a talking head and not a constitutional scholar. Second, even if she were a constitutional scholar, the only opinion that matters at this point is that of the district judge who is making the ruling. If the order is appealed, the opinions of the justices sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will matter. After that, those of the Supreme Court justices. No other attorneys' opinions on the issue have any effect on what the sitting judge(s) decide.
Many on here have read the immigration statute you refer to. But virtually no one has read the orders issued by the district judges and even fewer have read the cases cited in the order. Constitutional law involves 200+ years of federal jurisprudence and it's complicated. You've read one statute, but I'm guessing you haven't read the briefs of the parties and you haven't read the orders. There's nothing wrong with that, but you're not going to understand the reasoning of the courts unless you do.
Have you read the briefs of the parties and the orders? Do you understand the reasoning of the courts, expecially the ruling in the EO case? There was no 'reasoning' there.
Judge Pirro knows the law, and it's not opinion. Don't dismiss her just because you disagree. The judge who ruled against the EO based it on his opinion, not on law. There's a difference.
Because the left has made it a goal to obstruct, delay, distract in any way that they can. They'll fabricate reasons, if they need to.
Example is the recent ruling of an EO that simply says that enforcement of the laws in place will begin. This liberal judge decides that the President is not legitimate and since in his mind he is not, then any EO he issues is also not legitimate. Not much legal basis there.
This judge has some serious problems.
Have you read the briefs of the parties and the orders? Do you understand the reasoning of the courts, expecially the ruling in the EO case? There was no 'reasoning' there.
Yes, I have. Have you?
Judge Pirro knows the law, and it's not opinion. Don't dismiss her just because you disagree. The judge who ruled against the EO based it on his opinion, not on law. There's a difference.
This, my friend, is a convolution of the terms "opinion" and "law" of which Kellyanne Conway would be extremely proud. She's been laying low lately. You might consider applying for her position.
Dems love this, but they loved the nuclear option too....until it was turned around on them....they're plenty of conservative judges sprinkled all over America watch and learn
Dems love this, but they loved the nuclear option too....until it was turned around on them....they're plenty of conservative judges sprinkled all over America watch and learn
And they too would agree with this decision. It is the right decision.
Splitting a court has nothing to do with the decisions made by that court.
The calculus involves caseloads, the distances people must travel when their case is heard, and the cost of maintaining the federal facility, including administrative costs. The 9th circuit has one of the heaviest case loads in the country, and it reviews cases from Hawaii. If they run the numbers, and it proves to be more cost-effective to split the 9th, then the 9th will be split. If not - not.
If the Trump administration believes the ruling was wrong, its option is to appeal it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the district court's order is upheld, the administration can appeal to the SCOTUS. Those are the options. They cannot remove judges because they disagree with the rulings.
Again referring to the Ninth Circuit's unethical and incorrect ruling on Trump's 'travel ban' E.O.:
U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 1
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges both of the supreme and the inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good Behaviour ..."
The Constitution provides a second, separate restriction on the tenure of a federal judge: Article III of the Constitution limits a judge’s tenure to continuous “good behavior.” This reinforces the democratic side of the Constitution: only elected officials can remove either elected or appointed officials. Congress clearly understood this as they passed a law in 1790 making federal judges automatically ineligible for continued service upon conviction of a crime. The “good behavior” limitation on appointed officials specifically states: “the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.” It does not say the judges shall hold their offices “during their lives” nor “unless removed by impeachment”; it says they keep their judicial powers only “during good behavior.”
One need not be a conservative or an originalist to see the Constitution this way: no less than two well-respected law professors argued the same interpretation in the Yale Law Journal. History also supports this interpretation. Language of “good behavior” limitation on office-holding pervaded the revolutionary era, and preceded it in English common law, which our founders adopted. The original latin phrase for good behavior tenure -- "quamdiu se bene gesserit" -- applied to a wide range of English officeholders.
The recommended manner of determining good behavior incorporates procedures akin to an administrative trial process, where each of the political branches plays a role -- the executive in initiating investigation and prosecution, and the legislative in a jury-like function. As fellow scholars note: “under any reading of the Constitution, the political branches have the authority to investigate and sanction judges.” Judges actually do this to each other for ethical breaches, including removal from hearing cases. The problem is that the judiciary does a lousy job of policing its own. Time for Trump to drain the judicial swamp.
What defines “bad behavior”? The Code of Conduct for federal judges compel judges “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary,” “perform their duties fairly, impartially and diligently,” and “refrain from political activity.” This means a judge “should not be swayed by partisan interests.”
I will say again, this is not a case of simple disagreement with the ruling of these judges. In the opinion of more than a few lawyers, some with Constitutional credentials, and supreme Court litigators, these judges acted unethically, based on their politics, based on their opinion of Donald Trump and even cited statements made by Trump during the campaign. They did not consider the law or it's Constitutionality.
You keep citing to Jeanne Pirro as if her opinion is the be-all and end-all when it comes to federal court jurisdiction. She's welcome to her opinion, but first, she's a talking head and not a constitutional scholar. Second, even if she were a constitutional scholar, the only opinion that matters at this point is that of the district judge who is making the ruling. If the order is appealed, the opinions of the justices sitting on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will matter. After that, those of the Supreme Court justices. No other attorneys' opinions on the issue have any effect on what the sitting judge(s) decide.
Also, a judge is subject to removal from office for impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors--not for issuing a ruling with which one of the litigants disagrees. The House of Representatives files articles of impeachment and the Senate conducts a trial. The president has nothing to do with it.
Many on here have read the immigration statute you refer to. But virtually no one has read the orders issued by the district judges and even fewer have read the cases cited in the order. Constitutional law involves 200+ years of federal jurisprudence and it's complicated. You've read one statute, but I'm guessing you haven't read the briefs of the parties and you haven't read the orders. There's nothing wrong with that, but you're not going to understand the reasoning of the courts unless you do.
Jeannine Pirro is only ONE lawyer and former judge that I regularly cite, and I do cite her here because she made a point of addressing this specific case in her Opening Statement one evening, cited the law that Trump relied on, and explained quite articulately why these Judges were wrong. He comments were in concurrence with those of others, such as Jay Sekulow of The ACLJ, for one. Even Alan Dershowitz weighed in on it, and was in agreement with the aforementioned, as well as many others.
You see, I do read and do my research. I do not just simply give my personal opinion, as many here do, with no basis for that opinion other than it's how they "feel." Liberals "feel." They do not look for facts and truth.
Finally, since Judge Jeannine went to law school, I think she does know a bit about the Consitution. She isn't simply a "talking head," as you put it. She is a real attorney, a former prosecutor, and DA.
Judges keep their jobs "during times of good behavior" Article III Section 1, U.S. Constitution (and may be removed for bad behavior).
why don't we all just hand him all they keys to the house, the car and, the bank account- and shout the KING lives and become his peasants-
I'm looking towards Costa rica- more and more-
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is the right decision.
