Screw that. I would be seeking impeachment of the judge. There was no reason for this ruling. The case should have been ruled moot instead. Just more activism from the bench.
And? Is that policy still in place? No. Is there tangible harm? No. Moot.
Not illegal for the govt to remove parents from the children of citizens.
Judge doesnāt have a leg to stand on. It should be appealed just for the slap down the judge deserves.
Them are our kids legally once they cross the border! We shouldnt have to give them back!
Well Obama handed them over to traffickers for forced labor but Trump may be against that sort of thing.
We long ago settled the issue of judicial impeachment over judicial rulings.
In the case of the impeachment of Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, the Senate acquitted him on the grounds that a justice or judge may not be impeached solely on how they rule in cases, establishing a precedent that has been unchallenged since then.
Sounds like Judge Sabraw is getting fed upā¦
The federal judge overseeing the reunification of children and parents separated at the U.S.-Mexico border berated the Trump administration late Friday, accusing it of using his ruling as ācoverā to imply that speeding up the reunification process might potentially endanger children.
Federal judge calls Friday filing by HHS ācoverā for its failings in reunification process
Can you imagine if anything you ever said was true?
1 Like
So possibly someone who would harm the childā¦ or leave them ā¦ or sell them.
Now challenge me on how a loving guardian would never do that. Go ahead.
Sounds like itās time to revisit that. Some of these judges clearly need to be knocked down a peg or two and be reminded what their job actually is. Legislating from the bench is not it.
Given the constitutional separation of powers, how exactly do you see āknocking these judges down a peg or twoā playing out?
Iāll never get tired of seeing a judgeās ruling called legislating from the bench. It is like a song that I can play over and over and still enjoy.
Remind me what the check on the judiciary is againā¦
Hereās a hint: Article II.
Yeah you like being wrong. We know.
Oh, Iām wrong often, but Iāll never like it. I do get a sense of relief when I admit Iām wrong, similar to going to confession as a kid. What a rush!
LMAOā¦ How many federal judges have been impeached in the ENTIRE history or our country? Hint: 15 from the founding of the countryā¦ Good luck on your impeachment proceedingsā¦
Times change. We werenāt really enforcing immigration laws for a few decades either but look whatās happening lately.
Are you referring to federal courts across the country rejecting the administrationās approach to immigration enforcement?
You mean several of the judges whose rulings were later overturned? No, but now that you brought them up you might want to read up on the Flores settlement from 1997. You know, another Federal Judge saying the government canāt detain the children of illegals along with their parents. Now they canāt seperate them either? Well, gosh. It almost sounds like a few of these judges just either donāt know about decisions like the Flores settlement or just decided we shouldnāt be enforcing immigration laws. Imagine that.
We already have a method for dealing with potentially incorrect judicial rulings.
A litigant has an available appeal to the appropriate Court of Appeal, in this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
If that fails, they have the option of Petitioning the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.
That is the only appropriate method for handling an adverse ruling.
