Posted on 02/04/2017 11:05:54 AM PST by ColdOne
Trump called him a “so-called” JUDGE based on the determination that the EO was not constitutionally correct.
He has every right to do that because the EO is within the bounds of the Presidency.
This Judge is not in his juris and knows it.
Again, I agree completely with your point. But the use of the "so-called" only gives the left a point to argue to the LIVs. Trump should have left it out. It doesn't help at all. The guy is a judge, legally appointed. Why muddy the waters? There is an underlying issue, with which I agree with you. But there is also a political/persuasive fight, and the "so-called" only gives ammunition to the other side.
You may see it as inflammatory but Trump sees it as incompetence and failure.
The Judge has no right to step on this order. The President decides who comes into the nation.
If extreme vetting is the order, then so be it.
Again, I agree with your point. Legally, I believe Trump is correct. I think that the judge is wrong and out of line.
But in terms of political optics, I think Trump made an error, and gave the enemy a way to change the subject from whether the judge was correct to whether Trump respects the independence of the judiciary. It’s a bogus argument, but it serves the left as a distraction which could have been avoided.
Don’t you think it’s more than merely judge’s salaries that are at issue?
As you described, Congress can ‘reconstitute’ the federal judiciary below the US Supreme Court. That would seem a drastic act but this case reveals a conspiracy of so-called judges willing to blatantly violate federal law by ignoring its clearly written language. It is inflammatory how politicized the lower federal courts have evolved over these past many decades.
In this case, and in the NY case, and possibly others (I haven’t studied them all), the judges ignore the clearly worded federal statute in total as they wrongly assert jurisdiction over immigration.
This is not opinion. It is clear writing of the law:
28 USC 2241(e)(1)
“No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/28/VI/153/2241
... OR IS AWAITING SUCH DETERMINATION is directly equivalent to the President’s order of a temporary ban while conducting EXTREME VETTING. The only way to not see this is to ignore it, dismiss it as if it does not exist, based on nothing more than a dislike of the President. That is a willful violation of law by not just a judge but judges.
The statute could not be more clear, and yet the judges ignore it even as they assert jurisdiction by Writ of Habeas Corpus.
The various statutes of 28 USC 2241 specify jurisdiction via a Writ of Habeas Corpus, yet 2241(e)(1) overrides all such statements, otherwise it would be completely noneffective and superfluous. Yet the judges choose to ignore it. Any judicial person that would ignore or dismiss this clear language cannot be considered a judge, they are in effect a political hack, especially when multiple judges in various jurisdictions repeat the same formula, it points to a conspiracy. Clearly, the judiciary is not independent, it is controlled by politics.
The correct action for any judge in these matters is to not hear the case or to dismiss with prejudice. This should happen regardless of which political party occupies the White House. The Constitution and law are written to establish conditions for a judiciary that functions independently but that does not mean a judiciary that is renegade which is what is happening in these cases.
In addition to 28 USC 2241, the President has other jurisdictional support in both Constitution and law.
Regardless, the President will win but it is a duty for the judiciary to be held accountable. The costs of these willful violations by so-called ‘judges’ must be accounted for. Congress has the power of the purse which pays for courts. Judge’s salaries notwithstanding, no judge will be able to operate without sufficient court personnel. Let Congress hang courts out to dry until Judges get the message that there is a cost to their politicized behavior and blatant willful violation of law.
How else to hammer ‘activist’ judges?
“Unfortunately, in this case, the federal judge does speak for the country.”
I guess I missed the part in my high school civics class where a federal circuit judge can nullify a presidential order. Please fill us in. State the constitutional article and paragraph. Thank you.
“Unfortunately, in this case, the federal judge does speak for the country.”
Oh, yeh. Also highlight the constitutional paragraphs where it states that a judge is the supreme ruler of the country, with legal power to overrule both the US congress and the president.
“Also highlight the constitutional paragraphs where it states that a judge is the supreme ruler of the country, with legal power to overrule both the US congress and the president.”
We have three co-equal branches of government, thus no branch has supremacy over the other. For now, it seems that federal agencies are recognizing and abiding by Robart’s temporary order.
President Trump has other options besides filing for a stay.
He can suspend all DHS Agents that follow the judge’s order and replace them with Military Police.
” How exactly does any President “remove” a judge “immediately”?
Charge the judge with sedition and send in the FBI to remove him from the bench.
The Federalist Papers are pretty clear the the courts were intended to be the weakest branch and the legislature the most powerful.
“Charge the judge with sedition and send in the FBI to remove him from the bench.”
Maybe you could use those means to remove Robart but his ruling would stay in place until heard by a higher court.
“The Federalist Papers are pretty clear the the courts were intended to be the weakest branch and the legislature the most powerful.”
And Marbury v. Madison (1803) made it clear that the Judicial Branch had the power to review the actions of the other two branches of government.
Things do not happen as quickly as you like.
“We have three co-equal branches of government, thus no branch has supremacy over the other.”
Are you serious? The Founders gave the legislative branch, the house specifically, the power to set up the courts and what they could or could not make rulings on. And those rulings that the courts make have no effect on laws or orders that the congress or president might make.
No, it did not make it ‘clear’, far from it. It was left in place as part of a century’s old standoff. It could be challenged at any time but courts by and large have recognized it’s best to let sleeping dogs lie.
“And those rulings that the courts make have no effect on laws or orders that the congress or president might make.”
I think we can all name cases that went before the Supreme Court where the Court overturned laws that had been passed by state or by Congress and signed by the president.
“And Marbury v. Madison (1803) made it clear that the Judicial Branch had the power to review the actions of the other two branches of government.”
Name the Constitutional article and section that gives judges the power to nullify legislative laws or create judicial law.
The keyword, Timpanagos1, is “review.” Review is not the power to nullify or create law by the judiciary.
Do you really think that we fought a revolutionary war and that the Founders risked everything so that a bunch of black-robe hacks would be given the power of dictatorship?
The ruling has been in place for more than 200 years and I doubt it is going anywhere.
I think the reality is that the Judicial Branch has on occasion found laws to be unconstitutional.
I think we can all name cases that went before the Supreme Court where the Court overturned laws that had been passed by state or by Congress and signed by the president.
One last time:
NAME THE ARTICLE, SECTION AND PARAGRAPH IN THE US CONSTITION THAT GIVES JUDGES THE POWER TO CREATE LAW OR NULLIFY LAWS PASSED BY THE US CONGRESS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.