Impeach Judges Who Reject Constitutional Law and US Code -- P&E, Oscar Y. Harward

[bsteadman]

Impeach Judges Who Reject Constitutional Law and US Code

WILL JUDICIAL ACTIVISM CAUSE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?

The Post & Email
by Sharon Rondeau
2/5/2017

Excerpt:

by Oscar Y. Harward, ©2017

(Feb. 5, 2017) — The time has arrived in America for US House legislators to open impeachment proceedings against “left-wing” judges who rule on their political views while rejecting Constitutional law and US Code.

This will be a difficult time for an impeachment, as most Senate Democrats appear to favor a Constitutional collapse.

.................................................

View the complete article, including image, links and comments, at:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2017/02/...w-and-us-code/

[bsteadman]

Trump's Travel Ban Halted (for Now); Could Go to Supreme Court

The New American
by Bob Adelmann
2/5/2017

Excerpt:

The firestorm that erupted following President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees issued on January 27 has resulted in more than 50 lawsuits being filed against it. One of them, filed by the state of Washington and then joined by the state of Minnesota, resulted Friday in a temporary restraining order that halted nationwide Trump’s travel ban preventing nationals of seven foreign countries and refugees from entering the United States. The order, issued Friday by U.S. District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle, set off a flurry of tweets from the president deriding the ruling and a White House promise that Robart’s order would immediately be appealed.

The Trump administration filed an emergency motion Saturday night asking that Judge Robart’s temporary restraining order be stayed, allowing the administration to enforce the travel ban while the judge's decision is being appealed. On Sunday morning, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not stay Robart’s order immediately, but would consider the administration’s request after receiving more briefs from both parties. The administration was asked to file a second brief by
Tweets from the president came fast and furious. His first tweet on Saturday, posted at 4:59 a.m., stated: “When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety &.security - big trouble!” As the day unfolded, his other tweets included:

• At 5:12 a.m.: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

• At 12:44 p.m.: “What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions, can come into the U.S.?”

• At 1:44 p.m.: “Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision.”

• At 4:48 p.m.: “The judge opens up our country to potential terrorists and others that do not have our best interests at heart. Bad people are very happy!”

Although Judge Robart’s decision was made by a district court covering just Washington state, he made it apply nationally, explaining that “a partial implementation would undermine the constitutional imperative of a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and Congress’ instruction that the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.”

Professor Carl Tobias, an expert on federal courts at the University of Richmond School of Law, said Robart’s ruling was “extraordinary” but legal: “It’s an extraordinary type of measure, but is perfectly within the power of a district judge.”

It’s possible that Robart was given the case because appeals from his bench go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an activist-liberal court that has distinguished itself as having the highest number of reversals by the U.S. Supreme Court of any of the other 13 circuit courts. As Carol Williams, a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times, noted in reviewing the 9th Circuit’s record in July 2011: “It was another bruising year for the liberal judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the Supreme Court overturned the majority of their decisions, at times sharply criticizing their legal reasoning.”

The issuance of nationwide decisions by federal courts for only parts of the country has been criticized by legal scholars, since this approach can encourage “judge-shopping.” The Wall Street Journal quoted Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, saying: “The idea is that you pick a judge who’s friendly, go to court, and stop a big government program before there’s been a trial, or before the judge even has an evidentiary record.”

.................................................. ......

View the complete article, including image, at:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews...-supreme-court