Impeaching a Federal Judge.

[Crixus]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

 

[Valerie]

time to impeach somebody!




A federal judge issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump’s executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials, after finding the order unconstitutional.

The ruling by District Judge William H. Orrick in San Francisco comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County and follows a temporary halt on the order that the judge issued in April.

Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.


“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”


In court earlier this year, the government’s lawyers had said that cities were overreacting to the order because federal officials had not yet moved to withhold funding from them.

The ruling marks another blow to the Trump administration by the judicial branch. Other federal judges have reined in the administration’s travel ban after questioning its constitutionality. Those rulings are still winding their way through federal appeals courts.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera described Orrick’s decision as a victory for the “rule of law.”

“No one is above the law, including the president. President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can’t grant himself new authority because he feels like it,” he said in a statement. “This case is a check on the president’s abuse of power, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities

 

[Crixus]

time to impeach somebody!




A federal judge issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump’s executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials, after finding the order unconstitutional.

The ruling by District Judge William H. Orrick in San Francisco comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County and follows a temporary halt on the order that the judge issued in April.

Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.


“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”


In court earlier this year, the government’s lawyers had said that cities were overreacting to the order because federal officials had not yet moved to withhold funding from them.

The ruling marks another blow to the Trump administration by the judicial branch. Other federal judges have reined in the administration’s travel ban after questioning its constitutionality. Those rulings are still winding their way through federal appeals courts.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera described Orrick’s decision as a victory for the “rule of law.”

“No one is above the law, including the president. President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can’t grant himself new authority because he feels like it,” he said in a statement. “This case is a check on the president’s abuse of power, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities

Yup. Sometimes you have to shoot one hostage right out the gate to let them know who is in charge. Judges think they are untouchable. You political pseudo intellectuals do to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No judge is going to be impeached until the Senate and House go Democratic.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There's some fuckers on the 9th circuit, I'd love to get rid of.

 

[Valerie]

time to impeach somebody!




A federal judge issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump’s executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials, after finding the order unconstitutional.

The ruling by District Judge William H. Orrick in San Francisco comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County and follows a temporary halt on the order that the judge issued in April.

Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.


“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”


In court earlier this year, the government’s lawyers had said that cities were overreacting to the order because federal officials had not yet moved to withhold funding from them.

The ruling marks another blow to the Trump administration by the judicial branch. Other federal judges have reined in the administration’s travel ban after questioning its constitutionality. Those rulings are still winding their way through federal appeals courts.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera described Orrick’s decision as a victory for the “rule of law.”

“No one is above the law, including the president. President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can’t grant himself new authority because he feels like it,” he said in a statement. “This case is a check on the president’s abuse of power, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities

Yup. Sometimes you have to shoot one hostage right out the gate to let them know who is in charge. Judges think they are untouchable. You political pseudo intellectuals do to.

psst don't think i don't see you.. mr psuedo intellectual.

 

[Crixus]

time to impeach somebody!




A federal judge issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump’s executive order to deny funding to cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials, after finding the order unconstitutional.

The ruling by District Judge William H. Orrick in San Francisco comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County and follows a temporary halt on the order that the judge issued in April.

Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.


“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”


In court earlier this year, the government’s lawyers had said that cities were overreacting to the order because federal officials had not yet moved to withhold funding from them.

The ruling marks another blow to the Trump administration by the judicial branch. Other federal judges have reined in the administration’s travel ban after questioning its constitutionality. Those rulings are still winding their way through federal appeals courts.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera described Orrick’s decision as a victory for the “rule of law.”

“No one is above the law, including the president. President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can’t grant himself new authority because he feels like it,” he said in a statement. “This case is a check on the president’s abuse of power, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”

Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities

Yup. Sometimes you have to shoot one hostage right out the gate to let them know who is in charge. Judges think they are untouchable. You political pseudo intellectuals do to.

psst don't think i don't see you.. mr psuedo intellectual.

Did you grab my ass?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no integrity left on any federal bench or the SCOTUS. Federal judges and justices have become political over the past 100 years to the point where the political ideology of the appointing president determines how a federal judge will conduct him/herself, without regard to law or any guiding principles.

Take the fucking blindfold off lady justice. It's fucking OVER.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what charges are you using to bring about the impeachment? That you disagree with them? That you don't like them?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So what charges are you using to bring about the impeachment? That you disagree with them? That you don't like them?

It's not about disagreeing with them. It's about them acting improperly.

Judges and Justices are asked to make tough decisions that they may not personally agree with.

Judge Napolitano said that on Scalia's desk, he had a plaque that stated "Stupid, but Constitutional." That is the mind set all judges and justices should have.

The SCOTUS' job is not to save us from the stupidity of the legislators, but to determine whether laws are constitutional on their face or as applied, without regard to the harsh results. It's not their duty to make political or legislative decisions. Leave that to elected officials.

 

[jillian]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

 

[Crixus]

So what charges are you using to bring about the impeachment? That you disagree with them? That you don't like them?

none. but they need to be reminded who they are there for and why.

 

[Crixus]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

 

[Richard-H]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

 

[jillian]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

 

[Crixus]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

but all the important ones are settled by political hacks.

 

[Crixus]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

Anyone will do. Needs to be a loooong and protracted character assassination, followed immediately with heaps of scorn. Think of them as a scapegoat for the others.

 

[jc456]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

why do you?

 

[jc456]

Every time there is a judicial decision, one side is going to be happy and the other unhappy.

The unhappy side will always fault the judge and make accusation that the judge is a political activist or such.

The vast majority of judicial decisions are made in accordance with the Constitution and the law.

then follow the constitution. that's all. when will that happen here?

 

[jillian]

Its Time.

Impeachment of Federal Judges


By way of example, the only Supreme Court Justice to ever have been impeached (though not convicted) was Samuel Chase, in 1805. Chase had criticized a decision made by President Jefferson (the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801, effectively eliminating many newly created federal judgeships held by Federalists, a political party opposed by Jefferson). Jefferson led the charge to have Chase impeached. Officially, the articles of impeachment also included several other actions taken by Chase as a lower court judge, accusing him of mishandling his job. However, though the House voted to impeach, the Senate acquitted. More recent examples provide better illustrations of how impeachment is used in the modern era. For example, Walter Nixon (no relation to the former U.S. President), a federal judge in Mississippi, was impeached and convicted in 1989. Nixon had committed perjury by lying under oath to investigators, falsely denying his involvement in helping the son of a business partner get out of being prosecuted for a drug-related charge.

why do you hate this country?

its to white.

that would be "too:.

so which justice should be impeached dearie?

Anyone will do. Needs to be a loooong and protracted character assassination, followed immediately with heaps of scorn. Think of them as a scapegoat for the others.

doesn't work that way, snooks. you have to have a reason to impeach a federal judge. it isn't about flexing your muscles because it's supposed to be non-political.

let us know when you come up with one.