You use the process and, at the very least, explain to the American people what is being done. Make the process the punishment.

Or just be silent and continue taking the ass-whippings.

So ask a bunch of questions, the judge says he doesn't discuss current or future cases over and over again, his conviction fails the senate, he returns to the bench and rules the exact same way?

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

EOT !

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Ignore the judge

---

This. Supreme Court already ruled over him

Ignore him, and tell him to enforce it

Nothing that idiot can do about if ignored

If this does get back to SCOTUS, I hope one of the SCOTUS justices has the huevos to point out that this behavior is unacceptable, and specifically state in a concurring opinion that the best course of action would be for Congress to impeach him.

BusterAg said:

---

If this does get back to SCOTUS, I hope one of the SCOTUS justices has the huevos to point out that this behavior is unacceptable, and specifically state in a concurring opinion that the best course of action would be for Congress to impeach him.

---

That would help, but Senate wont do it

Why don't they 1) ignore this judge, and 2) pursue impeachment against him?

Buck Turgidson said:

---

Why don't they 1) ignore this judge, and 2) pursue impeachment against him?

---

Again what does impeachment do?

They need to impeach one judge. Put the fear in them. Consequences.

ETA: Assuming impeachment is removal from the bench.

Max Stonetrail said:

---

They need to impeach one judge. Put the fear in them. Consequences.

ETA: Assuming impeachment is removal from the bench.

---

Only federal judge to be impeached and removed to my knowledge was Alcee Hastings for blatant bribery. Then he ran for Congress and kept getting elected until he died, IIRC.

Federal judges consider themselves bulletproof with lifetime appointments.

aggiehawg said:

---

Max Stonetrail said:

---

They need to impeach one judge. Put the fear in them. Consequences.

ETA: Assuming impeachment is removal from the bench.

---

Only federal judge to be impeached and removed to my knowledge was Alcee Hastings for blatant bribery. Then he ran for Congress and kept getting elected until he died, IIRC.

Federal judges consider themselves bulletproof with lifetime appointments.

---

They aren't wrong in that belief. The system is just broken beyond repair.

The problem is the RINOs in the Senate are a bunch of globalist *******.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

How TF do we have the most idiotic legal system where you can keep defying ruled on case law to specifically stall the law

This judge needs to be impeached

---

Impeachment won't work. The Consitution specifies that judges serve under good behavior. It needs to be ruled that this judge is under the definition of bad behavior and is removed without impeachment.

samurai_science said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

If this does get back to SCOTUS, I hope one of the SCOTUS justices has the huevos to point out that this behavior is unacceptable, and specifically state in a concurring opinion that the best course of action would be for Congress to impeach him.

---

That would help, but Senate wont do it

---

Nope.

But it is likely unprecedented, and would absolutely put a stop to any career advancement for the judge.

BigRobSA said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

How does this decisoin have any power when the USSC already ruled on this exact situtation (assuming it is exact)?

Why was this lawsuit even allowed to be filed if the USSC already made a judgement on this topic?

What are the differences in this lawsuit from what the one the USSC already heard?

---

Knowing lawyers, a comma placed in there somewhere.

---

It is the same lawsuit, D.V.D. vs DHS.

What's getting lost in the coverage of this is that the previous issue that bubbled up to the Supreme Court regarded a preliminary injunction issued by the judge while this ruling the other day was a full judgment on the merits.


To add some clarity to that, the Supreme Court stayed the judge's preliminary injunction but the Supreme Court did not issue an actual judgment on the merits of the case and did not tell the judge to dismiss the case or otherwise not issue a final judgment.

The Supreme Court might ultimately disagree with the final judgment, but the district court judge is not disobeying the Supreme Court staying a preliminary injunction by issuing this final judgment.

Quote:

---

Impeachment won't work. The Consitution specifies that judges serve under good behavior. It needs to be ruled that this judge is under the definition of bad behavior and is removed without impeachment.

---

Ruled by whom, exactly?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

How does this decisoin have any power when the USSC already ruled on this exact situtation (assuming it is exact)?

Why was this lawsuit even allowed to be filed if the USSC already made a judgement on this topic?

What are the differences in this lawsuit from what the one the USSC already heard?

---

Knowing lawyers, a comma placed in there somewhere.

---

It is the same lawsuit, D.V.D. vs DHS.

What's getting lost in the coverage of this is that the previous issue that bubbled up to the Supreme Court regarded a preliminary injunction issued by the judge while this ruling the other day was a full judgment on the merits.


To add some clarity to that, the Supreme Court stayed the judge's preliminary injunction but the Supreme Court did not issue an actual judgment on the merits of the case and did not tell the judge to dismiss the case or otherwise not issue a final judgment.

The Supreme Court might ultimately disagree with the final judgment, but the district court judge is not disobeying the Supreme Court staying a preliminary injunction by issuing this final judgment.

---

You should be a lawyer. Obfuscation well done

MagnumLoad said:

---

SCOTUS has ruled. This judge is ignoring that ruling. Simple, ignore this judge.

---

This is wrong.

Hope that de-obfuscates the situation.