Trump wants to impeach judges now

ZenMode said:
FYI, the executive and judicial branches are equal.
Click to expand...

So they have the same duties?

So a regional manager in the Department of Agriculture can adjudicate federal law and sentence people for crimes? Just as a district judge can assume command of the armed forces?



ZenMode said:
The ruling by a district judge isn't final and can be appealed to SCOTUS for a final ruling.
Click to expand...

Until SCOTUS rules, it has no authority over the President of the United States. No more than a clerk in the Dept. of the Interior can command SCOTUS to hear certain cases.
 
ZenMode said:
It is a review. You don't charge a judge criminally because you don't like his ruling, you dunce.
Click to expand...

It's insurrection. It is politically motivated acts coordinated to impede and impugn the executive branch of the United States Government. The "Little judges of the DNC" are attempting a judicial coup.

The house has a duty to impeach Boasberg and Reyes. Articles of impeachment against Boasberg have already been introduced.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Rightly so.



The party is waging an insurrection using corrupt Jurists such as Boasberg and Reyes.

The House has a duty to impeach them both and remove them from the bench. They are not the overlords of the nation who override the constitutional powers and duties of the president. They have engaged in sedition and are unfit to sit on the bench.
Click to expand...
No their just judges exercising the Constitutional power the Founders gave them
 
ZenMode said:
Stop being retarded.
Click to expand...
Mantra 1a. Lame.
ZenMode said:
Stop with the straw manning.
Click to expand...
Fallacy fallacy.
ZenMode said:
Opinion presented as fact.
Click to expand...
The law is not an opinion, Void. Go learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.
ZenMode said:
Every president tests the limits of his power. Biden did. Trump did. Obama did.
Click to expand...
Compositional error fallacy and bigotry.
ZenMode said:
Sometimes the courts shit them down,
Click to expand...
No court has authority over the President's authority over the executive branch.
ZenMode said:
as they did to Biden when he tried to forgive student loan debt using executive power.
Click to expand...
Biden had no authority to forgive student loan debt and charge taxpayers for the grant.
ZenMode said:
Opinion stated as fact.
Click to expand...
You are mindlessly chanting again. The law is not an opinion. Buzzword fallacy.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
So they have the same duties?

So a regional manager in the Department of Agriculture can adjudicate federal law and sentence people for crimes? Just as a district judge can assume command of the armed forces?





Until SCOTUS rules, it has no authority over the President of the United States. No more than a clerk in the Dept. of the Interior can command SCOTUS to hear certain cases.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS has no such authority either.
 
We have had Over 40 different Presidents and they impeach Trump twice. It stands to reason that in the thousands of different Federal judges that have served a few should be impeached.
 
Into the Night said:
The Constitution never gave any such power, anchovies. DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION YOU DESPISE!
Click to expand...

Notice how Arachnid never did come back with the article or amendment that supposedly grants courts the power to overrule the other branches?

He is ignorantly trying to claim the Marbury is the Constitution. But even Marbury limited the usurpation to the Supreme Court. Marshall never attempted to extend such power to clerks and office help, nor to the inferior courts established to serve the high court.

None of these leftists have ever read the constitution, and they have no idea how our government is designed.
 
Into the Night said:
SCOTUS has no such authority either.
Click to expand...

Chief Justice Marshall usurped the authority under Marbury v. Madison. The other branches failed to use the checks and balances available, so it became precedent. The Supreme Court rightly or wrongly, does have the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.

This does not provide SCOTUS with the power to determine policy for the Executive - much less inferior courts. The actions of Boasberg and Reyes are clearly illegal and seditious. These are malicious acts with the sole intent of disrupting and subverting the legal authority of the President to make policy within the Constitutional provisions of Article II.

Boasberg and Reyes are engaged in seditious conspiracy as part of the insurrection the democrat party is waging.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Chief Justice Marshall usurped the authority under Marbury v. Madison. The other branches failed to use the checks and balances available, so it became precedent. The Supreme Court rightly or wrongly, does have the power to determine the constitutionality of laws.
Click to expand...
It does NOT have the authority, however, to change any constitution or to even interpret any constitution. It MUST conform to the limits placed upon by the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State the court is in (if not a federal court).
Uncensored2008 said:
This does not provide SCOTUS with the power to determine policy for the Executive - much less inferior courts.
Click to expand...
Correct. No court has authority over the President's authority.
Uncensored2008 said:
The actions of Boasberg and Reyes are clearly illegal and seditious. These are malicious acts with the sole intent of disrupting and subverting the legal authority of the President to make policy within the Constitutional provisions of Article II.

Boasberg and Reyes are engaged in seditious conspiracy as part of the insurrection the democrat party is waging.
Click to expand...
Correct again. These judges have broken the law and should be removed from office.
 
Into the Night said:
Mantra 1a. Lame.

Fallacy fallacy.

The law is not an opinion, Void. Go learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Compositional error fallacy and bigotry.

No court has authority over the President's authority over the executive branch.

Biden had no authority to forgive student loan debt and charge taxpayers for the grant.

You are mindlessly chanting again. The law is not an opinion. Buzzword fallacy.
Click to expand...
More avoidance. More lies. Much more opinion stated as fact.

Literally nothing useful from yet another one of your posts.
 
Walt said:
End of the day, trump can call for anyone he wants to be impeached. Roberts can say it is wrong to call for random people to be impeached. Everyone has freedom of speech. Just because trump can say something does not mean he should. But that is another issue.
Click to expand...
All of this is true. Saying he wants to impeach a judge is among his rights, Roberts has a right to say it is wrong. Neither of them have the power to impeach anyone or to stop Congress from impeaching someone if they vote in articles of impeachment. Neither of them can force 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict and thus remove the judge either. If the Senate does vote to convict on the articles of Impeachment after a hearing the SCOTUS cannot save him even if they think it is "wrong" to do this. It isn't within their power to stop the checks and balances that were designed into the system.
 
ZenMode said:
And Trump shouldn't be running his mouth. There is a process to review judges.
Click to expand...
Which review suggests a judge to be impeached? In this case a federal judge holds a lifetime appointment. What review process other than impeachment is there?

The only judicial review for a federal judge is impeachment by the House and a trial by the Senate as outlined in Article III of the US Constitution.
 
Damocles said:
Which review suggests a judge to be impeached? In this case a federal judge holds a lifetime appointment. What review process other than impeachment is there?

The only judicial review for a federal judge is impeachment by the House and a trial by the Senate as outlined in Article III of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I was talking more about the specific ruling and partially about actual punishment.

The President should allow the established process for both to play out and not be calling for impeachment.

The next time Trump shuts his mouth will be the first, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top