Uh huh. So the judiciary is the only check available on the judiciary? I don’t think so.
The Executive has a check. The President can appoint judges who match his philosophy. Trump is already doing this, 40+ plus judges at this point.
Take it you never read Article 1 or Article 3 of the Constitution.
Both Article 1 and 3 provide means by which judges may be removed from the bench. Congress lacks the guts to exercise their power over the Judiciary. Maybe can’t blame them due to the fact it would make judges political footballs.
Every charge of “judicial activism” represents the pounding of a mental midget on a great iron wall.
1 Like
I’d much prefer if they just said something more truthful like “This decision upsets me, and here is why.”
The ruling basically states that the government violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause. This ruling only applies to the 2 children in this case. Interestingly, the government is NOT denying that a Constitutional violation occurred, they are merely contesting the relief to be granted in this case.
While impeachment by the House only requires a simple majority, conviction by the Senate requires a 2/3rd’s majority. Republicans are unlikely to ever hold such a large super majority and they are unlikely to get Democrats to go along with any impeachment not grounded in a “High Crime and/or Misdemeanor”.
Philosophical impeachment is a waste of time, because conviction is impossible.
Because of attitudes like yours. Imagine that.
I wish I was like you and could get that rush every day. Sadly, I have to wait far longer between my highs.
I’m convinced that being wrong often is a function of being human.
If I analyzed ten random things that I believe to be true, I’d probably end up batting .500, and I’m sure I’m wrong about that, too.
I like you. Keep it up. I can’t be assured that your .500 batting average will improve, but i’m sure you’re going do good things for the team.
1 Like
Since I admitted I"m from San Diego, I’d like to include how great Tony Gwynn was as a batter, even though his lifetime average is only something like .350.
1 Like
Interesting. So why didn’t the judge mention the same Constitutional violations when applying the exact same scenario to citizens who are incarcerated? Oh right, because he pulled it out of his ass.
Another legal giant speaks his mind. 
1 Like
If you get pulled over with your kids in the car over a warrant, your kids aren’t shipped to a different state while you wait for bail or your visit with the judge, for starters.
Talk about pulling something from ones nether regions.
Impeachment is not the only means to remove a judge, or do you believe a complete, mentally disturbed judge should remain on the bench just because of political divisions in Congress. In times of good behavior is up to Congress t determine and impeachment is not associated with it. Like i said, Congress is loath to make laws for the removal of judges, sans impeachment, due to turning judges into political footballs every time Congress flips politically.
I’m not sure what you’re babbling about. The point was citizens are stripped of their parental rights all the time by the government. In some cases, merely being convicted of a felony is sufficient.
For some odd reason, this judge decided it was not one but two Constitutional violations to do so with an illegal alien, but no similar statement regarding citizens. Never mind the Flores settlement which I pointed out earlier. So just so we have it straight, you’re perfectly fine with a citizen having their children forcibly removed from them never to be seen again, but we should treat illegals differently? Ok then. 
Coming from you, I’ll take that as a compliment.
