How Can a Judge Raise Himself Above the President?

Where in the United States Constitution does it give one liberal judge the authority to place himself above the President of the United States?

Over the past few decades, federal judges have been assuming far more authority than the Constitution gives them. Some liberal judges use their position to overrule the American people, Congress and even the President, to impose their liberal ideology upon the nation.

I recall years ago, when the issue of English only went to a vote of the people of Arizona. If passed, it would make English the only official language in the state and eliminate the need and waste of taxpayer dollars to print everything in English and Spanish. The people of Arizona overwhelmingly passed the English only measure. The vote wasn’t even close. Well over two-thirds of the people voted to make English the only official language. However, one liberal judge took it upon himself to rule against the citizens of Arizona and struck down the measure, claiming it was discriminatory. Cross the border south into Mexico and you won’t find many signs and official documents in both Spanish and English.

When Barack Obama refused to enforce federal immigration laws, he left the people of Arizona vulnerable to the evil wiles of many thousands of illegal aliens and illegal drug traffickers. Then Arizona Governor Jan Brewer pleaded with Obama to take measures to secure the border and protect Americans and Arizonans. Obama refused. He even refused to visit the border in Arizona to see just how bad the situation was. At the demand of the people of Arizona, the state legislature passed its own immigration laws to help protect the people. However, another liberal judge ruled on his liberal agenda and nullified most of the parts of the Arizona immigration bill, basically gutting its effects.

Since Obama refused to enforce immigration laws, refused to secure the border and refused to protect the American people, President Donald Trump is forced to take drastic measures to make up for Obama’s failures. He used an executive order to place a temporary, not permanent, but temporary halt on immigration and accepting refugees, especially those from 7 Middle East nations who have the highest number of Islamic terrorists worldwide, in order to give our officials time to implement a better vetting system than the lax one used by the Obama administration.

Liberals throughout the United States and abroad instantly began screaming and crying that Trump was discriminating against Muslims. They failed to realize that his temporary ban also affected Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and everyone.

Then one liberal judge from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals takes it upon himself to issue a stay of Trump’s presidential executive order. To begin with, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is by far THE most liberal federal court in the entire United States.

Secondly, where in the Constitution does it give a lone judge the authority to place his personnel agenda above the power and authority of the President of the United States? It doesn’t!

I heard the judge explain that there are no instances of any terrorist activity carried out in the US by anyone from the 7 countries Trump singled out and therefore, there is no grounds for his action. Do American citizens have to die or live in fear of being killed by a terrorist attack before this liberal judge will agree that the executive order is warranted?

The US has been the subject of terrorist attacks carried out by Islamic extremists and since these 7 countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen are the top hotbeds for Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, it only makes sense that they would be targeted by Trump’s order. In fact, I would have added Afghanistan and Pakistan, especially since the Islamic terrorist attack in San Bernardino was carried by at least one Pakistani national – Tashfeen Malik.

Most Americans, including an uninformed and uneducated media, believe that federal judges are appointed for life, but the Constitution does say that. In fact, there is NO provision in the Constitution that says any federal judge, including those on the Supreme Court, is appointed for life. What the Constitution states is that they are to serve in ‘good behavior’, leaving the option open for a president or Congress to removed them when they are no longer in ‘good behavior’. I would say that the judge from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not acting in ‘good behavior’ and therefore constitutes grounds for his removal from the bench. When any judge favors foreigners over the American people, they are not acting in ‘good behavior’ and should be removed from the bench, Whenever a judge believes he is above the authority of the President of the United States, he is no longer acting in ‘good behavior’ and should be removed from the bench.

Tags

Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Please leave your comments below