Trump's lawyer to take the fifth.

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A politicized Judiciary is more of a threat to American democracy than Trump could ever be.

Don't you think that that ship has sailed? Right now, the Trump administration is stocking the courts with conservative judges, many so outrageous that even the present Republican Congress didn't confirm them. I just read this this morning :

"Sadly, the last successful Court of Appeals nominee that Obama had was on January 13, 2016, and his last District Court successful nomination was on July 11, 2016. The number of vacancies were available for a very good reason – the Senate leadership refused to permit nominations or hearings, including in the Fifth Circuit (Florida, Texas and Louisiana). Trump has taken advantage of the McConnell delays – to date, Trump has nominated one SCOTUS justice, twenty-seven Circuit Court judges (with three more nominations pending), and seventy-five District Court judges (with five more pending)." source

Does that sound democratic to you?

The threats to American democracy are legion. Some would argue that it is half gone already.

Lobbying is a huge threat. It changes one man, one vote to one dollar, one vote. Trump bragged during his campaign how he was above being bought off like the hundreds of politicians he paid off who then gave him what he wanted. Does that sound like democracy to you? Opinion | Yes, Trump does buy off corrupt politicians. At least, that’s what he told us himself, remember?

How about a woefully uninformed electorate easily manipulated to vote against its own interests?

How about institutionalized political propaganda running 24/7 in the mainstream media?

How about an indolent Congress that refuses to enforce the rule of law?

How about election tampering that is being ignored?

So he didn’t get any sanction as a judge for going rogue as a judge.

Moore was twice fired from the Alabama Supreme Court: Twice-Fired State Supreme Court Justice Wins Alabama Primary — Here's What You Need To Know

Executive orders is from the highest branch of the 3 parts of government.

None of the three branches is highest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing in your post said he was removed from the bench nor disbarred. Find a prescient example, this one isn’t. Not that you ever even gave sufficient details on this one.

Actualy by pointing out that he was a rogue judge in response to someone that gave the conditions for that it should have been obvious. If you do not understand something the correct action is always to ask politely rather than to jump to an errant conclusion.
And you seem to have misused the word "prescient'.

Once again the example I gave holds.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I encourage you to show that your opinions here have some basis in fact.

What's a "rogue decision"? Is deciding to engage in a crime a "rogue decision"?

When he demanded an example I gave him one, but since his demand was rather vague I was not precise in my example, though he should have been able to figure out who the rogue judge that I used was. For some odd reason he does not like it when the tables are turned and his tactics are used against him.

 

[Shaul]

See above.

It's rare to have a judge fired, much like it's rare to have a president impeached or a congressperson removed. But here at the state and local level we have had judges removed and, as a matter of fact, there's one being investigated right now that seems likely to be outed.

Our system is based on "the separation of powers", which obviously means that the judicial branches here do have their own jurisdiction, so the idea that that I originally commented on stating that they are somehow lesser than the legislative branch is simply bogus-- American Government 101.

State and local judges aren’t the ones that rule on things such as Trump’s temporary travel ban and Executive Orders. Those are handled by Federal judges. Federal judges are so rarely removed from office it can not be any deterrent from Federal judges issuing outlandish rulings.

 

[Shaul]

I encourage you to show that your opinions here have some basis in fact.

What's a "rogue decision"? Is deciding to engage in a crime a "rogue decision"?

You want some fact, fine. In the entire history of the U.S. there have been only eight Federal judges that have been impeached, convicted and removed from office. Eight isn’t even close to hundreds. As for state and local judges they don’t have standing on Federal issues.

I have already given an example of a rogue decision, the cases against the travel ban.

 

[Phantasman]

State and local judges aren’t the ones that rule on things such as Trump’s temporary travel ban and Executive Orders. Those are handled by Federal judges. Federal judges are so rarely removed from office it can not be any deterrent from Federal judges issuing outlandish rulings.

It doesn't surprise me that the "judges" that attack anything Trump does are Obama appointee's. It's just another divisive ideology of the Dem/Rep showing two different views of the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want some fact, fine. In the entire history of the U.S. there have been only eight Federal judges that have been impeached, convicted and removed from office. Eight isn’t even close to hundreds. As for state and local judges they don’t have standing on Federal issues.

I have already given an example of a rogue decision, the cases against the travel ban.

Now you have raised the claim from being merely rogue to criminal. There is a difference you know.

 

[Shaul]

Now you have raised the claim from being merely rogue to criminal. There is a difference you know.

I never said they were the same. I’m not raising the claim, I am raising the bar that judges should be held to. Currently judges are only removed for the worst of criminal offenses and even then only when there is no alternative. Judges realize this, and act accordingly! They corrupt themselves because they have done the calculus and know they can get away with political prostitution with impunity. They should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest. They should be removed for even the appearance of wrongdoing. You actually make my point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said they were the same. I’m not raising the claim, I am raising the bar that judges should be held to. Currently judges are only removed for the worst of criminal offenses and even then only when there is no alternative. Judges realize this, and act accordingly! They corrupt themselves because they have done the calculus and know they can get away with political prostitution with impunity. They should be held to the highest standards, not the lowest. They should be removed for even the appearance of wrongdoing. You actually make my point.

I am surprised that you think the illegal support of a Ten Commandments monument is the "worst of crimes".

 

[Shaul]

I am surprised that you think the illegal support of a Ten Commandments monument is the "worst of crimes".

Since I never said that you have no need for surprise, now do you? Don’t put words in my mouth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since I never said that you have no need for surprise, now do you? Don’t put words in my mouth.

Yes, you did. You just don't realize that you said it. You made this claim:

"Currently judges are only removed for the worst of criminal offenses and even then only when there is no alternative. "

The rogue judge that I have been talking about was removed from office. He was removed because he kept trying to put the Ten Commandments where they did not belong. By your logic that makes his illegal support of a Ten Commandments monument the "worst of criminal offenses".

 

[metis]

I agree. It was SCOTUS that ruled on many of Obama's executive decisions. Not the lower courts. So lower courts cannot legally rule on Trumps executive orders as well. Such as DACA, which was created by EO and handed to the Congress to finalize as "law". So the lower judges can say what they like, but their decisions are just questionable at best, and not final say.

That is false as lower federal courts can and do sometimes declare certain laws or e.o.'s unconstitutional, but any such decision they may make can obviously be reviewed by a federal appellate court or by the SCOTUS.

 

[metis]

State and local judges aren’t the ones that rule on things such as Trump’s temporary travel ban and Executive Orders. Those are handled by Federal judges. Federal judges are so rarely removed from office it can not be any deterrent from Federal judges issuing outlandish rulings.

Which is why they can be overruled through federal appellate courts or the SCOTUS.

And just a reminder that one person's "outlandish ruling" is another person's "smart ruling", which is why we have an appeals process to try and help sort things out. It's not a perfect system, no doubt, but it tends to beat the alternatives, imo. As long as we have a constitutional republic, some entity must be a check on the executive and legislative bodies that could otherwise run amok and pass and enforce laws that simply could violate the constitution.

 

[Nous]

You want some fact, fine. In the entire history of the U.S. there have been only eight Federal judges that have been impeached, convicted and removed from office. Eight isn’t even close to hundreds. As for state and local judges they don’t have standing on Federal issues.

I did overestimate the number of state and federal judges who have been impeached and convicted of crimes. My bad. There are only dozens, not hundreds.

I have already given an example of a rogue decision, the cases against the travel ban.

Why are the decisions on the travel ban "rogue decisions"? Define "rogue decision".

If you believe that any of the "rogue decisions" in the challenges to the travel ban did not abide by precedent, then provide that argument.

 

[Phantasman]

That is false as lower federal courts can and do sometimes declare certain laws or e.o.'s unconstitutional, but any such decision they may make can obviously be reviewed by a federal appellate court or by the SCOTUS.

Honestly. neither one of us knows for sure. I don't even think the government knows for sure, due to open interpretations from both sides.

 

[metis]

Honestly. neither one of us knows for sure. I don't even think the government knows for sure, due to open interpretations from both sides.

Not really as this is pretty basic: Federal judiciary of the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Executive orders is from the highest branch of the 3 parts of government.

We have 3 co-equal branches of government. The judicial branch can strike down executive orders and laws from the other two branches.

 

[Phantasman]

Not really as this is pretty basic: Federal judiciary of the United States - Wikipedia

So Wiki knows, when the two sides see the same thing differently. Let's get rid of the SCOTUS and allow Wiki to run things.

 

[metis]

So Wiki knows, when the two sides see the same thing differently. Let's get rid of the SCOTUS and allow Wiki to run things.

I used Wiki because it doesn't have an affiliation with either party. Instead of producing nothing, why not post links to justify your positions. If you can't, then maybe that in and of itself will tell you something. So, maybe come back when you have something to offer.

As oft heard, "You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts".

 

[Phantasman]

We have 3 co-equal branches of government. The judicial branch can strike down executive orders and laws from the other two branches.

Doubt it.

Executive Order:

1. a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law.

The EO is sent to the OFR. Not the other two branches of government.

The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register

The Executive branch is not the Judicial branch.

Federal Register :: Executive Orders