- 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 2:09 pm to LSURussian
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:09 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Even worse, you still don't realize it.
On this website, I'll never be in the majority, which is perfectly fine with me. I showed you the stats and you can read how the numbers were tabulated. If you choose to ignore it, I can't help you.
But, play devil's advocate for a moment- if the numbers aren't 1 in 3.6 billion, what do you think they are? Oh, and feel free to reference statistics or facts, even though you're clearly not a fan of data. Thanks!
1
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:11 pm to antibarner
quote:Excellent post and it is the basis for my OP.
The danger here is rule by black robe. Don't like the wall? Shop a judge and get him to stop it. Open our borders wide by filing suits in Federal Court.
Cut off money to sanctuary cities? No you don't Donald! We don't have a pen and phone but we DO have a judge and the 9th Circuit!
OK Congress..pass that tax cut for the rich? Noooooo you don't! Suit time! Those cuts are morally wrong!
Nuclear option to nominate Gorsuch?? OH NO YOU DIDN'T! And you won't once the judge steps in.
The other two branches of the federal government have a built-in check on them because they have to answer to voters.
The federal judiciary is a lifetime appointment. Just about the only check on them is via impeachment.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:13 pm to Dignan
quote:Read what you posted. Then read the title of the article you linked.
I showed you the stats and you can read how the numbers were tabulated. If you choose to ignore it, I can't help you.
See the difference? If not, 'then I can't help you.'
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:22 pm to jeff5891
quote:
Quit crying. If the EO is legit, the stay will be turned over in appeals court
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:24 pm to the808bass
quote:
The reasoning the judge used would apply to any restriction of immigration. As such, it doesn't make sense as it would limit the President's ability to restrict immigration no matter what restriction they made.
You could think that if you're convinced there is absolutely no legal grounds for asserting that the EO was beyond the President's authority. However, I think there are some solid arguments against his authority as put forth by David Bier of the Cato Institute. At least enough to issue the TRO, if that was even the basis, which none of us know having not seen the briefs forming the basis of the TRO.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:27 pm to cwill
You're dancing past my point.
Would any restriction on immigration have a negative effect on family relations, freedom of movement and economic activity?
Would any restriction on immigration have a negative effect on family relations, freedom of movement and economic activity?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:32 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached
One of them, Alcee Hastings, represents a Florida district in Congress.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:33 pm to the808bass
quote:
You're dancing past my point.
Not in the least.
quote:
Would any restriction on immigration have a negative effect on family relations, freedom of movement and economic activity?
Sure, but that isn't how the TRO works. You have to demonstrate a couple of elements before you get to the "irreparable harm". Trump may win this at some point or he may not. I think their is a question of law that has to be resolved...which IMV is a solid basis for a TRO. But again, I have no idea if that is what is being argued by the plaintiffs. The TRO is very light on facts...I'd like to see the briefs.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:37 pm to cwill
quote:
I think their is a question of law that has to be resolved...which IMV is a solid basis for a TRO.
But it does mean any immigration action proposed by the President would be subject to a TRO.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:50 pm to FightinTigersDammit
Read up on Alcee, he is a real piece of "work".
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:52 pm to the808bass
quote:
But it does mean any immigration action proposed by the President would be subject to a TRO.
No, it doesn't. There are unquestionably legal actions that can cause those or other harms and not be subject to a TRO. The judge in this matter finds that there is a likelihood that the underlying EO is invalid (for what exact reason neither of us know). Couple that with the harm (plus a few other elements that need to be satisfied) and you get a TRO.
ETA: Just want to add that this started with me asking Strannix for his reasoning as to why the decision was definitively wrong...I don't think you've actually made the argument that the decision is definitively wrong.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:52 pm to Rawdawgs
quote:
Read up on Alcee, he is a real piece of "work".
By 'work', you mean 'shite', right?
Posted on 2/5/17 at 2:57 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Read what you posted. Then read the title of the article you linked.
Here is the link.... What is it that you don't get?
LINK
Again, if it isn't 1 in 3.6 billion, what do you think it is? I mean is this website way off? Throw out a number, unless you can't find any facts or statistics, in which case, you should stick to chest thumping and namecalling.
This post was edited on 2/5/17 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:01 pm to LSURussian
Lock that fricking judge up
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:09 pm to Dignan
quote:Wow!
What is it that you don't get?
The headline of the article you linked:
quote:What you posted:
Odds of fatal terror attack in U.S. by a refugee? 3.6 billion to 1
quote:
Well, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than a being killed in a terrorist attack: roughly 1 in 3.6 billion.
Over the past 15.5 years in the U.S. there have been approximately 3,035 persons killed on U.S. soil in terrorist attacks. The current U.S. population is approximately 321.4 million.
So in addition to you not being able to read, you totally suck at math.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:14 pm to Dignan
quote:
Namecall rather than list facts. Typical.
I listed facts earlier. You didn't respond.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:15 pm to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
LSUTigersVCURams
You are literally the most bipolar Trump supporter that I know of.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:16 pm to cwill
quote:
want to add that this started with me asking Strannix for his reasoning as to why the decision was definitively wrong...I don't think you've actually made the argument that the decision is definitively wrong.
And, as you pointed out, no one can know without more information. I still think that his reasoning is overbroad and subjects explicitly Presidential powers to too much Judicial review. Whether that is warranted in this case is yet to be seen.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:18 pm to JuiceTerry
Looks like some of the OG judges were too damn drunk to perform their duties. Some of them probably hit on the first lady.
I am talking about their actions as a judge, rulings.
In this case I would be interested in his reasons for the ruling. If his reasoning was anything other than to support the law, then it is misconduct in my mind.
I woluld love to see a movement that targeted the judges attemting to legislate from the bench, those from the left and right.
I am talking about their actions as a judge, rulings.
In this case I would be interested in his reasons for the ruling. If his reasoning was anything other than to support the law, then it is misconduct in my mind.
I woluld love to see a movement that targeted the judges attemting to legislate from the bench, those from the left and right.
Posted on 2/5/17 at 3:19 pm to novabill
This judge wrote more about Judicial restraint in his opinion than he wrote about the merits of the case. He knows he fricked up.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News