Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/l...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trump’s order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning “A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.” Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” It’s difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didn’t know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he is authorized to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/l...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trump’s order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning “A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.” Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” It’s difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didn’t know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he is authorized to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”


Were you saying something about being brainwashed? You cite the dailycaller. Hahahaha.

"A liberal activist" appointed by Bush. Wow!

"Grossly legally defective" - this isn't even opinion, this is a blatant lie, not fact at all, in fact his ruling is based on law and he cited law.

"Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority" - another blatant lie.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
bush was a puppet just like obama...



parens patriae, Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.
...he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable.... not some judge in Washington state.

...reading is fundamental...
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
Congress authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, for each court level. Since 1869, Congress has authorized 9 positions for the Supreme Court. As of 2007, it had authorized 179 court of appeals judgeships and 678 district court judgeships.

Robart is a small fish in a big pond
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Any US District Judge can stop a President's order if there is sufficient legal grounds.

Actually, the judge doesn't really need legal grounds and can stop a President, at least temporarily. This judge's legal grounds are non-sensical. The appeal will be heard tomorrow in the Ninth Circuit (easily the most left wing, radical Circuit that once ruled that "In God We Trust" on our currency violated the constitution and was illegal. The judges hearing the appeal are two lefties and a moderate conservative.

I think the 9th court upholds this absurd ruling because of how far left wing they are. But SCOTUS will overturn. The law on this is very clear.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
and there wasn't...

it was a huge over reach...

checks & balances idiot...

And I cited the section from the INA the other day that is very clear about attempting to ban people based on national origin. It is illegal.

You have stooped to name calling. You mad?


Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]

101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
And I cited the section from the INA the other day that is very clear about attempting to ban people based on national origin. It is illegal.

You have stooped to name calling. You mad?


Sec. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]

101(a)(27) , 201(b)(2)(A)(i) , and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THESE RIGHTS...

IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN ON US SOIL, YOU DO NOT HAVE THESE RIGHTS...
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
https://www.cato.org/blog/governmen...minating-against-immigrants-based-nationality

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Section 212(f) is easily reconciled with section 1152(a)(1)(A): the latter sets forth the general default rule that applies in the absence of action by the President, whereas section 212(f) governs the specific instance in which the President proclaims that the entry of a “class of aliens” would be “detrimental the interests of the United States.”

Congress specifically chose to leave subparagraph (A) rather than repeal it, demonstrating its intent to have it constrain the executive.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
http://www.immigration-usa.com/ina_96_title_2.html

SEC. 202. [8 U.S.C. 1152]

(a) PER COUNTRY LEVEL.-

(1) NONDISCRIMINATION.-(A) Except as specifically provided in paragraph (2) and in sections 101(a)(27), 201(b)(2)(A)(i), and 203, no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person's race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.

(B) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of State to determine the procedures for the processing of immigrant visa applications or the locations where such applications will be processed.

---when Sessions gets confirmed this week, this will be over with...---
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
89, how many dead Americans (by terrorists that got into our country because of Robart) do you need to change your point of view ?
 

JMichael

Redshirt
Jul 7, 2001
619
3
18
The federal judge who blocked President Trump’s immigration order is described by former colleagues and acquaintances as a “mainstream” Republican who went from a career as a highly respected corporate lawyer in Seattle to an appointment by President George W. Bush to the federal bench.

I hate to break the news to some of you but Trump is not a dictator. Even a president has to follow the law.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
675
0
parens patriae, Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.
...he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable.... not some judge in Washington state.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
What is that number? could it be zero?
Good ole moe. Demonstrating the logic of your below average kindergartner for all to see on a daily basis. Good job moe. You are a winner!!!!
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,532
150
63
Good ole moe. Demonstrating the logic of your below average kindergartner for all to see on a daily basis. Good job moe. You are a winner!!!!
Enlighten me Dave, what is the number?
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/l...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trump’s order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning “A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.” Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” It’s difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didn’t know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he is authorized to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/l...lycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social
Liberal Judicial Activism Borders On Insurrection

President Trump was correct in excoriating liberal activist federal judge James Robart for his grossly legally defective temporary restraining order against President Trump’s temporary travel ban. Beyond excoriation Robart needs to be impeached and removed from the bench for judicial incompetence.

Robart reached far beyond his judicial authority in even supposing that the State of Washington had standing to appeal President Trump’s order in the first place. Robart hinges his entire ruling on a concept called parens patriae, a term meaning “A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.” Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.

In the case Massachusetts v. Mellon however, the Supreme Court ruled with absolute clarity that “it is no part of [a State’s] duty or power to enforce [its citizens’] rights in respect of their relations with the federal government.” It’s difficult to imagine a ruling that more clearly denounces and derogates both judge Robart and the State of Washington in this clearly extra-legal attempt to arrogate the power of controlling immigration to the State of Washington. If Robart didn’t know about this case he was explicitly informed of it by the Department of Justice in its objection to the TRO, so he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable. Congress delegated certain powers to restrict immigration to the President by enacting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), which says that when the President (any president) “finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” he is authorized to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

WOW.....just WOW
 

Popeer

Freshman
Sep 8, 2003
21,466
81
0
The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable.... not some judge in Washington state.

...reading is fundamental...
You're an idiot. The framers established an independent judiciary for a reason. If, as you say, the power over immigration is "exclusively reserved to Congress," then how does the president get to claim that power, as claimed by the lawyer in her argument? His order has nothing to do with executing immigration law.
 

lenny4wvu

Redshirt
May 17, 2009
5,289
24
25
bush was a puppet just like obama...



parens patriae, Ordinarily used by states to protect children and those who are incapacitated, Robart here tries to invoke this state-level power against the Congress and the President.
...he has no excuse for ignoring an on-point Supreme Court ruling.

The power over immigration is exclusively reserved to the Congress, and its power is plenary, which means total, complete and unreviewable.... not some judge in Washington state.

...reading is fundamental...
"Michael, is that a banana in your pocket ,or are just VERY happy to see me?"
 

lenny4wvu

Redshirt
May 17, 2009
5,289
24
25
89, how many dead Americans (by terrorists that got into our country because of Robart) do you need to change your point of view ?
No,but he SHOULD change his "legal status" and country of origin. . To Dumbfuckistan.
 
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
The federal judge who blocked President Trump’s immigration order is described by former colleagues and acquaintances as a “mainstream” Republican who went from a career as a highly respected corporate lawyer in Seattle to an appointment by President George W. Bush to the federal bench.

I hate to break the news to some of you but Trump is not a dictator. Even a president has to follow the law.

His fans can't grasp that concept.
 

lenny4wvu

Redshirt
May 17, 2009
5,289
24
25
Good ole moe. Demonstrating the logic of your below average kindergartner for all to see on a daily basis. Good job moe. You are a winner!!!!
"Participation trophy "in the mail..CONGRADULATIONS
 

lenny4wvu

Redshirt
May 17, 2009
5,289
24
25
Were you wearing your neatly pressed white robe and your cute, pointy white hat when you posted that?
BWHAAAAAAAAA!! There was nothing RACIAL in that post !! Nice try pphuckstain.. and try enlightening yourself..it's all over youtube.. and yesterday. ...wait for it....wait....w a I t...Ovomits attorney came out and said.."Barrys BC is fraudulent " and did you ever wonder why Barry and Michael took SEPARATE AF1S?
 

lenny4wvu

Redshirt
May 17, 2009
5,289
24
25
You're an idiot. The framers established an independent judiciary for a reason. If, as you say, the power over immigration is "exclusively reserved to Congress," then how does the president get to claim that power, as claimed by the lawyer in her argument? His order has nothing to do with executing immigration law.
EXACTLY HOW DID OVOMIT CIRCUMVENT CONGRESS TO GIVE AMNESTY TO MILLIONS OF 3RD WORLD DERELICTS..INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW. ..I know... (crickets)