Posted on 04/25/2017 10:02:31 PM PDT by Helicondelta
The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” or has become, by reason of a mental or physical disability, “unable to discharge all the duties” of the judicial office.
A significant quantity of the incarcerated illegals has failure to appear warrants for ducking out on their scheduled immigration court hearings. Enabling the defendants in those cases to avoid trial clearly harms the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the immigration courts. Maybe the White House could do some research there.
Then there’s the whole “hold office during good behavior” issue. Does enabling felons to escape punishment and releasing them to run riot in our cities constitute good behavior? If not, it’s grounds for impeachment.
Whatever the rationale for his ruling is, the effect is evident.
And the years we will need to wait for that to happen will seal this President’s doom.
He does not have that much time available to him to correct these defeats.
Your post has me thinking. I don’t agree with you that it’s a win-win for Trump. It’s disturbing that so many judges will thwart a presidents legal actions because they disagree with him politically, amounting to an overthrow of the government. Your post brings up perhaps a strategy to bring an end to Sanctuary Cities. That new federal bureau to help victims of invader crime should help those victims sue Sanctuary Cities and other entities out of existence!
We are one judge away from resolving this...
And just when you think you’ve finally won, Justice Roberts pulls something out of his arse, ala Obama care........
One side is willing to play by the rules. The other isn’t. It’s easy to see who’s gonna win.
The Democrats will work every trick in the book to maintain the flow of illegals into their cities. The heart of their motivation is the registration of new Democrat voters. It is not about the noble love of their fellow man. It is about their cynical need to maintain their grip of power in these cities.
That may very well be one of the tools DJT uses.
Despite the whining and moaning of many keyboard warriors here on FR, Trump will do what he has done all his life: adjust his operation to fit the situation. His goal remains the same.
“We cannot abandon the only potus who has tried to follow the law in decades.” Far too true.
“We cannot abandon the only potus who has tried to follow the law in decades.” Far too true.
I will never abandon him because there is NO ALTERNATIVE. If trump can’t get it done then no one can get it done. I really feel like trump is our final chance to gain inroads against the leftists.
You DO realize that if Trump does what you suggest, the spineless cucks, the insane libs, and the turncoat GOP will instantly impeach him, right?
And even if not convicted, that will completely derail the rest of the agenda, including every possible thing about illegals.
I’ll take you more seriously when you blame Congress half as much as you blame Trump.
As said of President Jackson, if this Judge thinks he can enforce his injunction, let him try.
Thrre are about 700 of these federal district judges. Not even Congress can unilaterally shut down the government, but each of these judges can by themselves do so. This is an unelected appointee.
It is the most anti-democratic authority never granted by the US Constitution to be perpetrated on our nation. It must stop.
Congress must take away such power and require any ruling impacting the nation must have SCOTUS en banc approval before it is issued. If SCOTUS can take the time at the last minute to rule on an execution, then Scotus can hear a national impact ruling by a far lesser court.
Well put. I think he may give us a bit of a breather to do good works for God and His Kingdom before the blackness engulfs the planet for 3.5-7 years or so. But the forces of evil—human and non are pressing forward with increasing intensity. I agree, there is no other significant, evident human help so empowered on the playing field.
The legal equivalent of MOAB would be a new judicial tribunal, established by Congress, to decide cases involving constitutionality of actions by the Executive or Legislative branches. There is no reason that any District Court judge in the US should have the power to decide that a law or executive action is unconstitutional, and stop its enforcement for years, at least. The Constitution did not grant this power to the Judiciary; they grabbed it in the earliest days of the Republic in the Marbury v. Madison case.
700 district judges, 435 congress members, 1 President, 9 Supremes. I agree fully with you point Chaplin. Does appear to be National Security and if the Supremes and our President are not in charge of National Security with Congress, therefore the math suggests the 700 rule America instead of the President, the Congress and the Supremes. For the sake of National Security the Rule of Law must be consistent for if is not everyone here knows the end resulting order. We simply do not know the timing or magnitude of the resulting order.
ArmstedFragg wrote:
“...The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 establishes a process by which any person can file a complaint alleging a federal judge has engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” ...”
Good point; deserves its own thread.
Does the person filing the complaint have to live in the same state as the judge?
How can this process get started, what are the steps (I guess it would be a lawsuit).
LS,
What are your thoughts on this approach mentioned by ArmstedFragg ?
Had to exclude the 100 senators. Each of them has conducted only one point toward the nation’s interest in the last 100 days
Thanks for pointing out where this usurpation (”decide that a law or executive action is unconstitutional, and stop its enforcement”) started:
“...The Constitution did not grant this power to the Judiciary; they grabbed it in the earliest days of the Republic in the Marbury v. Madison case.”
Marbury vs Madison 1803.
Because the Az law went to the SCOTUS and they were told immigration is a federal govt matter not a state matter
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.