Via Billy
This week’s rulings against President Trump’s revised executive order on travel and refugees have sparked heated pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill, who say judges have crossed the line to become adversaries of this White House — and suggested retribution could be coming.
Even some judges seemed worried about the tenor of recent rulings, saying their colleagues appeared to be letting personal beliefs taint their legal reasoning.
“As tempting as it is to use the judicial power to balance those competing interests as we see fit, we cannot let our personal inclinations get ahead of important, overarching principles about who gets to make decisions in our democracy,” Judge Jay Bybee, of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote in a dissent Wednesday. He said his colleagues erred in not agreeing to rehear Mr. Trump’s defense of his original executive order.
More @ The Washington Times
It is time for congress to begin impeaching these judges that ignore the law.
ReplyDeleteBadger
Long since,
DeleteJudges are to be "bound by the law" (Aricle VI, Section 2), the wording of the Constitution and laws pursuant thereof. Operating outside of that delegation of power should get them removed:
ReplyDelete"I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error; but honest error must be arrested where its toleration leads to public ruin. As for the safety of society, we commit honest maniacs to Bedlam; so judges should be withdrawn from their bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or in fortune; but it saves the republic, which is the first and supreme law." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:122
--Ron W
I do not charge the judges with wilful and ill-intentioned error
DeleteToday I Do! :)
Me too! Jefferson was being kind in assessing their "erroneous biases".The absurd idea that judges are independent with lifetime appointments has lead to judicial tyranny where they think they are the final arbiters of the law. They are under delegated power to apply the law according to the express wording of the Constitution and pursuant laws. Only a jury of citizens may take into account extraneous circumstances in judging the facts and judging the law while a judge is a referee in a court of law. As Zjefferson predicted in another quote, we have "a depotism of the judiciary". --Ron W
ReplyDeletejudges are independent with lifetime appointments
DeleteI was just thinking today that this needs to be changed.
That, and be held accountable for their decisions. --Ron W
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteActually Congress can, and previously has, removed the jurisdiction of the Courts to rule on a law. The last time I can recollect this being used was by Tom Daschle who I think removed the EPA and courts from ruling on a law that applied to all states except North Dakota. That was the only way he would vote for the law that the democrats wanted passed. indyjonesouthere
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Delete