Despite the fact that Trump has resoundingly and repeatedly criticized the 9th Circuit, five judges came to the President's defense, saying that "whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the President or the Executive Order, the President's decision was well within the powers of the presidency."
The comments from the five judges do not impact the move by a federal judge in Hawaii who blocked Trump's new travel ban on Wednesday.
But it could be meaningful down the line. If the Justice Department appeals the Hawaii ruling, the case will be headed to the 9th Circuit and could very well be heard by these same five judges who now say the law is on Trump's side.
More
They also stated:
ReplyDelete"The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse -- particularly when they came from the parties," they wrote.
"Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles," the judges added. "The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all."
Something can be legal yet immoral. I.e. segregation.
Who appoints federal judges?
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential nominees are often recommended by senators or sometimes by members of the House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee. Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers are appointed for a life term. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process.
(hawaiian judge) Watson, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the district court in 2013, didn't formally rule on the constitutionality of Trump's order itself.
(maryland judge) Theodore D. Chuang, the federal judge who ruled against President Trump’s revised travel ban Thursday, is himself the son of immigrants and a veteran of President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security.
Chuang, whose parents are from Taiwan, was selected for the court in 2013 as part of a new wave of younger judges nominated by Barack Obama.
I think anyone with half a brain can see what is happening here.
I have half a brain and I see it, though I can't speak for other half-brained people.
ReplyDeleteIf we have another 911 i want the judges to be Arrested.
ReplyDeleteGo through CONGRESS and the idiots dems that say NO they will be held responsible if there is another 911?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThese judges ALL know the President's first and second travel restriction Executive Orders were entirely legal. The orders mirror in many respects earlier ones by Obama.
They understand their Restraining Orders will be overturned, but are thrall to their Democrat masters. Once a new Supreme Court justice is seated appeals will go forward.
The five 9th Circuit judges have effectively recused themselves from any appeal of the HI judge. They probably wouldn't have been selected for the appeal or an en banc hearing anyhow so their likely recusal is moot.
Congress has a remedy, rarely used, for such rogue judges...and that is to impeach and remove the offending judge/s for stepping so far outside both the Constitution and settled statutory law.
Section 1
ReplyDeleteThe judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Federal judges do not serve for life. Read the Constitution, they serve 'during good behavior'.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI have half a brain and I see it, though I can't speak for other half-brained people.
March 16, 2017 at 2:14 PM
I had to chuckle at that. Good one.
Congress has a remedy, rarely used, for such rogue judges...and that is to impeach and remove the offending judge/s for stepping so far outside both the Constitution and settled statutory law.
March 16, 2017 at 5:32 PM
Thanks for pointing that out.
Federal judges do not serve for life. Read the Constitution, they serve 'during good behavior'.
ReplyDeleteMarch 16, 2017 at 6:04 PM
And as long as they continue to serve in 'good behavior' they can sit there for life.
Always one.....
Federal judges will hold office “during good behavior” and they shall receive “compensation” for their services.
ReplyDeleteOnce they are appointed, federal judges remain in office during “good behavior.” In effect, most federal judges serve a life term (since the Constitution does not state a time limit or number of years).
Once appointed, their salaries cannot be “diminished” or decreased. This protects the judges from being manipulated through their salary.