Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.
Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.
If he does, Pence may well become President.
The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.
Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.
He was the Red Sticks 'final solution' at Horseshoe Bend. A cherokee leader who fought on the American side he would have slaughtered Jackson if he knew what Jackson was going to do over the next 25 years.Yes, and he also adopted a Native American boy and raised him as his son. You obviously never studied American history enough to hear of Jacksonian Democrats.
Jackson is like Trump in many ways. He loved the American people and did not give two shits about who knew it.
...and Hitler was good to his dog, too.....
Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing.
Oh, I don't think so. The Cherokee was a civilized tribe. They farmed land that they had improved themselves, and in many cases, had legally bought rather than just being reservation land. They had treaties They had a written language.They had their own newspaper. However, gold was discovered in North Georgia, but unfortunately, it was on Cherokee reservation land. So, Jackson defied his own federal courts and threw them off the land. Yes, he had adopted an indian boy, and you are telling me that indians did not, and do not hate the bastard?
Therefore, these peaceful farmers were robbed of their land. Treaties were broken, and they were force marched to Oklahoma, which was then known as "Indian Territory". Now, there is not a single indian reservation left in "Indian territory".
Did I disagree with anything you said other than to correct your misinterpretation of history?
Since the entire topic is of a historical nature, I would say that you would have to restate the above in a language that is translated from what appears to be something like PalinSpeak, before I can figure out what your point is.
Jackson hated Indians, and he hated the British. His adopting an Indian boy does not negate the fact that he was a bigot to such an extent that he was only a couple of steps short of being America's architect of it's own "final solution".
You are living in delusion.Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.
Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.
If he does, Pence may well become President.
The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.
Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.
I'm living in the one where 8 U.S. Code § 1182 exists.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
You are living in delusion.Nah, you clearly think you are living in America that does not exist.The court has jurisdiction, original jurisdiction on the Constitution. Article III guarantees it.
Neither the federal judiciary nor the Congress will tolerate a President overriding the courts.
If he does, Pence may well become President.
The court has no jurisdiction over presidential powers.
Pence will not become president over this. The law is clear. Trump has plenary power... not the court.
I'm living in the one where 8 U.S. Code § 1182 exists.
The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
Not in that post!
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
Not in that post!
Again, go fuck yourself. It's linked in that post. It's in the quote and the post is a continuum of the quote. If you don't like it, report me to the mods. That's what I plan to do with you if you post again without addressing the thread topic... that is also a violation of board rules.
Furthermore, I am going to suggest that the president should instruct his AG to immediately file to have this judge removed. We cannot have judges interfering with presidential authority to protect the citizens of the United States, it could be a matter of grave national security. What if a president receives classified information that someone is going to try to sneak a nuclear bomb into the country? Does a judge have the right to interfere with his duty to try and prevent that? This is a potentially dangerous situation to be allowed and Trump needs to nip this in the bud right here and now.
I do believe that this is the most absurd post I have read on this board in at least a week.
The provocative Yale Law Review conclusions are in no way supported by the Constitution.The AG cannot remove a sitting federal judge. They have to be impeached. Alcee Hastings of Florida became infamous when he was elected to Congress after being impeached and removed as a federal judge.
Actually, they DON'T have to be impeached.
Removing Federal Judges Without Impeachment
The Constitution authorizes the impeachment of federal judges, but it nowhere says that they can be removed only through impeachment. Nor do the Constitution’s relevant provisions easily lend themselves to any such reading.
So now you are a loosy goosy Progressive big government liberal.
Stay here with me. You will learn a lot you need to know because you are generally clueless.
Articles I, II, and III respectively define the tenures, including the conditions that can terminate tenure, for the principal legislative, executive, and judicial officials. For example, Article I provides that a Senator’s tenure terminates upon the expiration of a six-year term, by “Resignation, or otherwise,” or (in the case of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy) upon “the next Meeting of the [state] Legislature.” Similarly, Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office.
In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”
Nor does Article III’s good behavior provision suggest that it merely cross-references Article II’s impeachment provision. To the contrary, the “good Behaviour” requirement is manifestly not identical to the standard for impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The separate standards corroborate what the natural reading of the separated impeachment and “good Behaviour” provisions already suggests, namely, that these provisions refer to independent tenure-terminating contingencies.
I read your link, which should be cited in your post above.
Cutting and pasting without attribution is fraudulent.
It IS linked, shitstain. Go fuck yourself.
Why don't you address the topic and answer the question I asked you about judges that have been removed without impeachment.
I have been trying to explain to Trumpetts for almost 2 years that virtually everything Trump is promising to do is unconstitutional.
And now, the judiciary is starting to prove that I have been correct all along. It is only beginning.
Why don't you address the topic and answer the question I asked you about judges that have been removed without impeachment.
Because I don't really give a shit. I just posted that to address the claim that judges MUST be impeached. Not necessarily according to the Constitution.
For the record, I don't think anything is going to happen to your precious liberal judge. This case will go before the 9th on Monday or Tuesday and they will uphold the president's EO and that will be the end of it. The jihadists best be getting their asses here in a hurry.
