White house vows emergency stay of judicial order thwarting Presidents immigration order

[JakeStarkey]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

 

[Boss]

The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.

Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.

If he does, Pence may well become President.

The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.

Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.

Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.

I'm living in the one where 8 U.S. Code § 1182 exists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, and he also adopted a Native American boy and raised him as his son. You obviously never studied American history enough to hear of Jacksonian Democrats.

Jackson is like Trump in many ways. He loved the American people and did not give two shits about who knew it.

...and Hitler was good to his dog, too.....

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.

Oh, I don't think so. The Cherokee was a civilized tribe. They farmed land that they had improved themselves, and in many cases, had legally bought rather than just being reservation land. They had treaties They had a written language.They had their own newspaper. However, gold was discovered in North Georgia, but unfortunately, it was on Cherokee reservation land. So, Jackson defied his own federal courts and threw them off the land. Yes, he had adopted an indian boy, and you are telling me that indians did not, and do not hate the bastard?

Therefore, these peaceful farmers were robbed of their land. Treaties were broken, and they were force marched to Oklahoma, which was then known as "Indian Territory". Now, there is not a single indian reservation left in "Indian territory".

Did I disagree with anything you said other than to correct your misinterpretation of history?

Since the entire topic is of a historical nature, I would say that you would have to restate the above in a language that is translated from what appears to be something like PalinSpeak, before I can figure out what your point is.

Jackson hated Indians, and he hated the British. His adopting an Indian boy does not negate the fact that he was a bigot to such an extent that he was only a couple of steps short of being America's architect of it's own "final solution".

He was the Red Sticks 'final solution' at Horseshoe Bend. A cherokee leader who fought on the American side he would have slaughtered Jackson if he knew what Jackson was going to do over the next 25 years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.

Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.

If he does, Pence may well become President.

The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.

Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.

Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.

I'm living in the one where 8 U.S. Code § 1182 exists.

You are living in delusion.

 

[Boss]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

*snicker* YEahh... The Yale Law Review doesn't know anything about the Constitution. That's a good one Jakey!

 

[Boss]

The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.

Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.

If he does, Pence may well become President.

The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.

Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.

Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.

I'm living in the one where 8 U.S. Code § 1182 exists.

You are living in delusion.

Like you've been doing the past 3 months?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

Can you even name one that has been removed by other means? The article you cited does not mention a single judge removed other than by impeachment. It is mental meanderings of a couple of law professors with nothing else to do but daydream about something that has no basis in reality. Obviously, they are a couple of liberals who think because it doesn't say you cannot do this in the Constitution that you must be able to do so. That is not originalist by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Boss]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

of course boss cannot name one judge unwillingly removed except by impeachment

boss can cite the Constitution all he wants but that means nothing in reality

reality is that if Trump tried to force his people to override a ban, they would resign

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

 

[Boss]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

It IS linked, shitstain. Go **** yourself.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

It IS linked, shitstain. Go **** yourself.

Not in that post!

 

[Boss]

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

It IS linked, shitstain. Go **** yourself.

Not in that post!

Again, go **** yourself. It's linked in that post. It's in the quote and the post is a continuum of the quote. If you don't like it, report me to the mods. That's what I plan to do with you if you post again without addressing the thread topic... that is also a violation of board rules.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

It IS linked, shitstain. Go **** yourself.

Not in that post!

Again, go **** yourself. It's linked in that post. It's in the quote and the post is a continuum of the quote. If you don't like it, report me to the mods. That's what I plan to do with you if you post again without addressing the thread topic... that is also a violation of board rules.

My, but aren't we the slightest bit touchy when caught with our pants down?

Why don't you address the topic and answer the question I asked you about judges that have been removed without impeachment. You should have gathered that I read the link because there is no one mentioned as ever having been removed by any method other than impeachment. In my world, that is called "proof" of someone's point. As I stated before, the article is apparently nothing more than a mutual mental masturbation session between two lawyers with too much time on their hands.

 

[MindWars]

Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the president should instruct his AG to immediately file to have this judge removed. We cannot have judges interfering with presidential authority to protect the citizens of the United States, it could be a matter of grave national security. What if a president receives classified information that someone is going to try to sneak a nuclear bomb into the country? Does a judge have the right to interfere with his duty to try and prevent that? This is a potentially dangerous situation to be allowed and Trump needs to nip this in the bud right here and now.

I do believe that this is the most absurd post I have read on this board in at least a week.

But you sure do keep coming back to it though don't you. lmao
Your responses through the post take that " absurdness " to a new level that doesn't even exist yet bhaahah

 

[MindWars]

The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.

Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment

The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.​

The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.

So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.

Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.

Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.

I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.

Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.

It IS linked, shitstain. Go **** yourself.

These brain deads are something else aren't they. The way they think it is almost as if they are from another planet. Planet dumb asses.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

 

[Boss]

Why don't you address the topic and answer the question I asked you about judges that have been removed without impeachment.

Because I don't really give a shit. I just posted that to address the claim that judges MUST be impeached. Not necessarily according to the Constitution.

For the record, I don't think anything is going to happen to your precious liberal judge. This case will go before the 9th on Monday or Tuesday and they will uphold the president's EO and that will be the end of it. The jihadists best be getting their asses here in a hurry.

 

[Boss]

I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.

And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.

No, the judiciary hasn't proven a goddamn thing.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Why don't you address the topic and answer the question I asked you about judges that have been removed without impeachment.

Because I don't really give a shit. I just posted that to address the claim that judges MUST be impeached. Not necessarily according to the Constitution.

For the record, I don't think anything is going to happen to your precious liberal judge. This case will go before the 9th on Monday or Tuesday and they will uphold the president's EO and that will be the end of it. The jihadists best be getting their asses here in a hurry.

See! There you go jumping to wrong conclusions. I have no "precious liberal judge". I think he overstepped his authority.

I happen to think you are right.