Oh come now Safiel. In this particular instance Judge Bates is perpetuating a blatant violation of our Constitution’s separation of powers. Congress has no authority to regulate [via the APA] powers vested in the Executive branch of government. Obama started the DACA nonsense and President Trump ended it. Why have elections if a newly elected President cannot reverse the policy set by a previous President? What wording in the Constitution can Judge Bates point to which authorized him to command President Trump to restart a program created by Obama? The Judge’s actions are an attack on our very system of government and embraces a previous President’s actions above a newly elected President.
Is it not a fact that Judge Bates took an oath to support “this Constitution” and only those laws which are made in “pursuance thereof”?
You bet Judge Bates is to blame!
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
And, it is even more that that. It is the very reason why we have elections and elected a new President . . . a president who promised to not embrace the destructive immigration policies of Obama.
Judge Bates is not vested with a power to require our President to restart Obama’s DACA policy, and is attempting to exercise a policy making power not granted to the judiciary.
In fact, it’s Judge Bates’ actions which are “unlawful and unconstitutional”, and are designed to nullify the very reason for having elections and why Trump was elected.
This freaken judge needs to be punished . . .
JWK
There is no surer way to weaken, destroy and subjugate a prosperous and freedom loving country than by importing the world’s poverty stricken and criminal populations into that country and making the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such an invasion.
Yes his decision I believe was incorrect, in that he failed to adequately address the Constitutional issue of the “take care” clause.
However, if for no other reason than pragmatism alone, I will decline to join the impeachment crusade.
Pragmatically, it ain’t going to happen. End of story.
Stephen Reinhardt basically took a giant dump on the Constitution from 1979 until his death earlier this year. Nobody ever even spoke of impeaching Reinhardt, well nobody of major stature that is.
If Reinhardt wasn’t impeached for his constant and OPEN defiance of the Supreme Court, Judge Bates is hardly going to be impeached for one decision.
Pragmatism aside, I oppose proceeding against Judge Bates or any Judge based on the concept of judicial independence. Judges certainly make mistakes. But they are also supposed to act in complete independence from the political branches. Moving against judges for other than high crimes and misdemeanors is an unwise policy.
There exists a way to deal with an errant decision.
That way is the appellate process.
This will go to the DC Circuit, then it will go to the Supreme Court.
There are judges on the federal courts far worse than Judge Bates on Bate’s worse day.
there is no requirement to meet the high crimes and misdemeanors standard for impeachment of a judge. only “good behavior”. blatant disregard for the constitution is by definition “bad behavior” for one sworn to apply it.
Exactly and we should just leave it up to the Judicial branch to correct unconstitutional abuses of the Judicial branch? That isn’t how checks and balances are supposed to work. When one branch acts out of line, we have two other branches that are supposed to be able to check their power. That’s the way it was set up to work anyway. Why is it people are ok with the Judicial branch running roughshod over the other two but whenever impeaching these activists judges comes up, well we’ll just let the problem resolve itself… Sure.
Republicans are never going to have the 67 seats needed to convict, so it really is a moot point. Ain’t going to ******* happen.
You need 67 votes in the Senate to convict. If Republicans lucked out with a series of good election cycles, they might make it to 60 seats. But that doesn’t cut if for conviction.
It is simply useless to push for something that simply has no plausible chance of ever happening.
Of course you are correct, the GOP could pass a bill tomorrow effectively repealing the APA and Trump would likely sign it… The REAL question is why they don’t pass a bill…
Why isn’t there a bill? Because there’s not enough support for it? They are supposed to be representing their constitutents, not foreigners, after all.
My bad, I misread that. Why would they need a bill to repeal DACA when it was put in place by an EO and the EO was rescinded? The only bill they would need to pass would be if they wanted to make the DACA an actual law. It was never a law to begin with, so there’s that.
Never say never. Trump getting elected wasn’t supposed to happen either. The media was calling it for Hillary right up until the end because “she had it in the bag.”
If enough people get riled up about the continued activism by some in the Judicial branch who typically tend to lean liberal, that could be just enough to swing enough support to the right to get those seats.
It may not be super likely, but it isn’t impossible. Nothing really is.
I am puzzled by your remedy to deal with tyrannical judges and Justices. Your remedy being the “appellate process” is liken to having the fox protect the henhouse.
Tell me, how do we remedy Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. cases in which our Supreme Court flagrantly ignored the most fundamental rules of Constitutional Construction in delivering its opinion, subjugated the limits of our Constitution, and opened the door for socialism being imposed upon the people?
Had the House drawn up articles of impeachment against Justice Cardozo, would it not have enlightened the public, at the very least, to the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and how Justice Cardozo blatantly ignored them in his desire to impose his personal whims and fancies as the rule of law rather than the limits of our Constitution? Would impeachment not have be a learning experience in addition to removing a tyrannical Justice?
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
I guess most agree that Judge Bates engaged in judicial tyranny.
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
