Time to look at impeaching federal judges.

[J.E.D]

You're really so deluded as to believe that the SCOTUS has been "terribly left-leaning" at any point in recent history?

Ummm.....damn you're dense!
Obamacare.....need I say more?

Are there ANY Lefttards who can come up with an argument that I can't destroy so easily?
This is boring.

Umm you haven’t destroyed anything

 

[J.E.D]

You don't like the judge's ruling and you want him removed. Just like they do in Africa.

You don't like the President, so you want him removed.......

Never said that, but since you had nothing, you had to make something up. Carry on.

That’s his M.O.

But it’s ok. He thinks he’s destroying everyone

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes. Only a "statist fool" would think that Judges should, you know, know what the law is.

We need judges who base their opinions on their "common sense" and emotion, right?

Like the judge who used Trumps campaign rhetoric to halt trumps ban on people from worn torn countries? He didn't use the law he ruled on his feelings


Or the judge who just halted trumps recindince of the dreamers based on trumps tweets?

You don't think that the President's own words, typed into his phone with his own stubby little fingers, is an accurate representation of the President's thought process and intention?

It doesn't matter if Trump said "I hate all the towel heads" he has the authority to determine who comes in from both the Congress and the Constitution.

The bill of rights don't apply to none citizens.

Feel free to submit your amicus brief to the Supreme Court, since you're convinced that you have such a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

As for your second point - it's patently false, as the Court has ruled countless times.

Article 1 (Legislative)
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Show me where it says we can't discriminate based on religion.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952) also nothing about the President can't discriminate based on religion.

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.

I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Never said that, but since you had nothing, you had to make something up. Carry on.

Yet, it was every bit as valid as your assertion......I'm sure it alludes you at the moment, but eventually you'll see why.
Hint:....because I never said I wanted judges removed simply because I didn't like them.

To the contrary....I want ALL judges who make emotional decisions rather than Law based decisions removed....and so should you.

 

[WEATHER53]

Just time to ignore them and see if they issue an arrest warrant for Trump
Judges render decisions based on current law. It is null and void when one judge creates a new law

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Umm you haven’t destroyed anything

His MO ? You don't know a thing about me sparkle panties.

And it's been almost 7 years you've been on this forum toots......
And you haven't said a thing worthwhile in all that time
Everyone's waiting........don't be shy.......
.
.
.
lol another one bites the dust

 

[Taz]

Never said that, but since you had nothing, you had to make something up. Carry on.

Yet, it was every bit as valid as your assertion......I'm sure it alludes you at the moment, but eventually you'll see why.
Hint:....because I never said I wanted judges removed simply because I didn't like them.

To the contrary....I want ALL judges who make emotional decisions rather than Law based decisions removed....and so should you.

No you want judges removed whom you don't like. I don't want any judges removed, they should feel independent enough to go with what's right, not what won't get them fired.

 

[WEATHER53]

Never said that, but since you had nothing, you had to make something up. Carry on.

Yet, it was every bit as valid as your assertion......I'm sure it alludes you at the moment, but eventually you'll see why.
Hint:....because I never said I wanted judges removed simply because I didn't like them.

To the contrary....I want ALL judges who make emotional decisions rather than Law based decisions removed....and so should you.

No you want judges removed whom you don't like. I don't want any judges removed, they should feel independent enough to go with what's right, not what won't get them fired.

Utterly wrong
They are mandated to go by the law, not by what they think is "right". They are acting based on sentiment (right) rather than fact (law) and Of Course that is appealing to liberals

 

[Mr.Blonde]

Like the judge who used Trumps campaign rhetoric to halt trumps ban on people from worn torn countries? He didn't use the law he ruled on his feelings


Or the judge who just halted trumps recindince of the dreamers based on trumps tweets?

You don't think that the President's own words, typed into his phone with his own stubby little fingers, is an accurate representation of the President's thought process and intention?

It doesn't matter if Trump said "I hate all the towel heads" he has the authority to determine who comes in from both the Congress and the Constitution.

The bill of rights don't apply to none citizens.

Feel free to submit your amicus brief to the Supreme Court, since you're convinced that you have such a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

As for your second point - it's patently false, as the Court has ruled countless times.

Article 1 (Legislative)
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Show me where it says we can't discriminate based on religion.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952) also nothing about the President can't discriminate based on religion.

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.

I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

The Supreme Court must agree to a certain degree since they upheld almost all of the immigration pause:

Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

The Supreme Court also has made miss ruled as well (separate but equal).

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You don't think that the President's own words, typed into his phone with his own stubby little fingers, is an accurate representation of the President's thought process and intention?

It doesn't matter if Trump said "I hate all the towel heads" he has the authority to determine who comes in from both the Congress and the Constitution.

The bill of rights don't apply to none citizens.

Feel free to submit your amicus brief to the Supreme Court, since you're convinced that you have such a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

As for your second point - it's patently false, as the Court has ruled countless times.

Article 1 (Legislative)
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Show me where it says we can't discriminate based on religion.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952) also nothing about the President can't discriminate based on religion.

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.

I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

The Supreme Court must agree to a certain degree since they upheld almost all of the immigration pause:

Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

The Supreme Court also has made miss ruled as well (separate but equal).

You should read your link again, I think you missed some salient points. They didn't uphold anything at all - they just kept the policies in place while the litigation continues.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

It doesn't matter if Trump said "I hate all the towel heads" he has the authority to determine who comes in from both the Congress and the Constitution.

The bill of rights don't apply to none citizens.

Feel free to submit your amicus brief to the Supreme Court, since you're convinced that you have such a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

As for your second point - it's patently false, as the Court has ruled countless times.

Article 1 (Legislative)
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Show me where it says we can't discriminate based on religion.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952) also nothing about the President can't discriminate based on religion.

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.

I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

The Supreme Court must agree to a certain degree since they upheld almost all of the immigration pause:

Supreme Court Allows Trump Travel Ban to Take Effect

The Supreme Court also has made miss ruled as well (separate but equal).

You should read your link again, I think you missed some salient points. They didn't uphold anything at all - they just kept the policies in place while the litigation continues.

I missed nothing. If the justices wanted to (or had a better argument than "people's feelings will be hurt) then they could have kept the immigrantion pause.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.
I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

Titles don't make professionals. Too many asshats with titles they shouldn't have in the first place.
If you are a circus judge, based on some of your comments, God help us all!

 

[J.E.D]

Umm you haven’t destroyed anything

His MO ? You don't know a thing about me sparkle panties.

And it's been almost 7 years you've been on this forum toots......
And you haven't said a thing worthwhile in all that time
Everyone's waiting........don't be shy.......
.
.
.
lol another one bites the dust

I didn’t realize you were stalking me. Kinda creepy.

I think you need to rethink what it means to destroy someone in an argument. All I’ve seen from you is pathetic flailing

 

[koshergrl]

It's hilarious..

When Doc says something about the right trying to impeach judges illegally, I naturally assume that the left has engaged in this behavior...

And indeed they have.

"But we need to be talking about impeachment if we are not to see every progressive economic regulation struck down by the courts as outside the supposed intent of the Constitution’s Founders — the regular rhetoric of those promoting rightwing legal theory."

The Huffpo whining about the justices striking down unconstituitional regulations, and giving consideration to IMPEACHING them for doing so.

Let's Talk About Impeaching Supreme Court Justices | HuffPost

Yes, the left thinks that the term *impeachment* is interchangeable with *coup*..as that is the way they define it.

But there is a constitutional process and constitutional reasons for impeachment.

If judges are making law and handing down determinations that are unconstitutional, and outside their authority or outside the law itself, then yes. They should be impeached.

The justices who voted in nationalized abortion ruled in violation of our constitution, and should have all been removed from the bench.

But no, you don't get to *impeach* just because you don't like their politics.

And that is what we are ramping up to do now. We are saddled with a whole population of corrupt, criminal appointees that need to be removed.

And we will.

 

[koshergrl]

Like the judge who used Trumps campaign rhetoric to halt trumps ban on people from worn torn countries? He didn't use the law he ruled on his feelings


Or the judge who just halted trumps recindince of the dreamers based on trumps tweets?

You don't think that the President's own words, typed into his phone with his own stubby little fingers, is an accurate representation of the President's thought process and intention?

It doesn't matter if Trump said "I hate all the towel heads" he has the authority to determine who comes in from both the Congress and the Constitution.

The bill of rights don't apply to none citizens.

Feel free to submit your amicus brief to the Supreme Court, since you're convinced that you have such a comprehensive understanding of the issue.

As for your second point - it's patently false, as the Court has ruled countless times.

Article 1 (Legislative)
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Show me where it says we can't discriminate based on religion.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952) also nothing about the President can't discriminate based on religion.

Don't tell me, I'm not a Circuit Judge.

I'm sure they're all waiting for your "expert opinion".

Translation: "I am not interested in the truth. I have a false narrative to push."

 

[J.E.D]

It's hilarious..

When Doc says something about the right trying to impeach judges illegally, I naturally assume that the left has engaged in this behavior...

And indeed they have.

"But we need to be talking about impeachment if we are not to see every progressive economic regulation struck down by the courts as outside the supposed intent of the Constitution’s Founders — the regular rhetoric of those promoting rightwing legal theory."

The Huffpo whining about the justices striking down unconstituitional regulations, and giving consideration to IMPEACHING them for doing so.

Let's Talk About Impeaching Supreme Court Justices | HuffPost

Yes, the left thinks that the term *impeachment* is interchangeable with *coup*..as that is the way they define it.

But there is a constitutional process and constitutional reasons for impeachment.

If judges are making law and handing down determinations that are unconstitutional, and outside their authority or outside the law itself, then yes. They should be impeached.

The justices who voted in nationalized abortion ruled in violation of our constitution, and should have all been removed from the bench.

But no, you don't get to *impeach* just because you don't like their politics.

And that is what we are ramping up to do now. We are saddled with a whole population of corrupt, criminal appointees that need to be removed.

And we will.

Translation: Waaaa meanie judges aren’t ruling the way I want them to