- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Federal judges can be impeached/removed for "abuse of power"
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:04 am to LSURussian
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:04 am to LSURussian
So instead of letting the American judicial process play out the way it has forever, you'd rather just impeach the Republican judge because he dared disagree with Donald? Judge must be Mexican or something.
1
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:04 am to LSUTigersVCURams
As recently as the U.S. v. Arizona, the courts (including the 9th circuit and SCOTUS)
have conferred broad authority upon the federal government in executing immigration policy.
A sudden and sharp reversal of this stance now obviously smacks of politics and not consistent legal reasoning.
I would think that even you can see it, but I might be giving you too much credit.
have conferred broad authority upon the federal government in executing immigration policy.
A sudden and sharp reversal of this stance now obviously smacks of politics and not consistent legal reasoning.
I would think that even you can see it, but I might be giving you too much credit.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:07 am to LSURussian
quote:
You actually think we could get 67 Senators?
It only takes a majority of votes in the House of Representatives to impeach.
Did you even read your entire post? Why in the hell would you impeach him...tie up the House for that whole time...when you don't have a fricking chance of convicting him? Or did you just not even understand what you posted?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:07 am to TrueTiger
Send SCOTUS an amicus brief 
The EO is getting struck down. What do you want to bet me?
The EO is getting struck down. What do you want to bet me?Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:08 am to JuiceTerry
quote:So if it "plays out" that the EO is upheld and the judge is overruled, then you would be in favor of impeaching the judge, right?
So instead of letting the American judicial process play out
quote:I'm not a Republican, hack.
you'd rather just impeach the Republican judge
quote:No, because he ruled based on the effect of the EO and not on the merits of its legality.
because he dared disagree with Donald?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:09 am to BamaGradinTn
I understood what I posted. Impeaching is different from convicting. It's obvious from your first post that you didn't know that.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:11 am to TrueTiger
quote:I don't even agree with the injunction, but you fight the matter legally in court. You don't impeach a federal jurist for tortured reasoning or because you question his motives. Is there evidence of impropriety? Is he on the take? Being blackmailed by Soros' magical goons? Has he gone insane? Was he under the influence when rendering judgment?
As recently as the U.S. v. Arizona, the courts (including the 9th circuit and SCOTUS)
have conferred broad authority upon the federal government in executing immigration policy.
A sudden and sharp reversal of this stance now obviously smacks of politics and not consistent legal reasoning.
No? Then keep it in court. There is nothing impeachable here.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:11 am to LSURussian
quote:
quote:
So instead of letting the American judicial process play out
So if it "plays out" that the EO is upheld and the judge is overruled, then you would be in favor of impeaching the judge, right?
quote:
you'd rather just impeach the Republican judge
I'm not a Republican, hack.
quote:
because he dared disagree with Donald?
No, because he ruled based on the effect of the EO and not on the merits of its legality.
I still want to know why in the ever loving frick you would want to go through the entire impeachment process in the House and a trial in the Senate when you have absolutely no fricking chance of getting a conviction in the Senate.
I don't want to hear about the judge's decision.
Try and give us an intelligent answer as to why impeachment is a good idea.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:13 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
The EO is getting struck down.
Oh, I think there is a good chance of this too.
But if it does it is further proof of corruption in the courts, and not the result of correct application of law and precedent.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:14 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Why in the hell would you impeach him...tie up the House for that whole time...when you don't have a fricking chance of convicting him?
Easy, to watch the MELT!!
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:14 am to LSURussian
quote:
I understood what I posted. Impeaching is different from convicting. It's obvious from your first post that you didn't know that.
Jesus, you are one clueless frick, aren't you?
Here's my first post:
"Did you even read your entire post? Why in the hell would you impeach him...tie up the House for that whole time...when you don't have a fricking chance of convicting him? Or did you just not even understand what you posted?"
Where in the hell does that say that I don't know what the process is? Can you not fricking read? You do understand what the word "convict" means, right?
You're just being fricking stupid.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 11:16 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:15 am to BamaGradinTn
Calm down, gump, before you have a stroke.
I believe "maybe it's time" for the legislative branch of the federal government to send a signal to activist judges that they are being watched and that if they abuse their power they will have to defend themselves in front of the House of Representatives.
It's immaterial to me if the Senate would convict in this case. It's the principle of "checks and balances" in our constitution that needs to be exercised more over the only unelected branch of government, IMO.
I believe "maybe it's time" for the legislative branch of the federal government to send a signal to activist judges that they are being watched and that if they abuse their power they will have to defend themselves in front of the House of Representatives.
It's immaterial to me if the Senate would convict in this case. It's the principle of "checks and balances" in our constitution that needs to be exercised more over the only unelected branch of government, IMO.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 11:20 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:16 am to LSURussian
quote:
"abuse of power"
this isn't an abuse of power. Quit crying. If the EO is legit, the stay will be turned over in appeals court
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 11:26 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:16 am to jeff5891
quote:Swing and a miss. Try again.
this isn't an adviser if power.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:17 am to LSURussian
Already did before you posted
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:18 am to jeff5891
quote:The time shown on your edit says you're lying. No big surprise there....
Already did before you posted
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:19 am to LSURussian
The time is wrong breh. Try to stay on topic instead of deflecting
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:19 am to LSURussian
quote:
Calm down, gump, before you have a stroke.
Grow a brain, coonass.
I understand that you were probably still a child when Clinton was impeached. You don't win politically going down that road if you can't get a conviction.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:21 am to BamaGradinTn
quote:MENSA member here, Forrest. And I was born in West Texas, so you're 0 for 2.
Grow a brain, coonass.
quote:0 for 3....
I understand that you were probably still a child when Clinton was impeached.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 11:26 am
Posted on 2/5/17 at 11:21 am to jeff5891
quote:
The time is wrong breh.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News