H/T Joe LaVeque
Just how many Barack Hussein sycophants are there on the bench of the 9th Circuit? They seem to keep turning up, usurping President Trump’s executive authority, which is, by the way, unconstitutional, and certainly justifies impeachment.
William Orrick is not a judge. He is a partisan political hack. Judges are impartial and objective. So partisan is William Orrick that he bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for Barack Hussein. No one who does that should be sitting in judgement of an opponent of Hussein’s insane policies. Orrick should have at least recused himself. I have never seen a more clear cut need for recusal.
Clearly, Orrick should be removed from the bench. Since impeachment is a virtual impossibility and Orrick knows this and is emboldened by that fact to do as he damned well pleases, impartiality be damned, then other means should be explored to remove him and the other obstructionist so-called judges in the 9th Circuit.
“Article III federal judges” (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve “during good behavior” (often paraphrased as appointed “for life”). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.[1]
In the meantime, President Trump should take his case to withhold funding for sanctuary cities before the US Supreme Court as soon as possible. I feel certain he will prevail.
Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama, according to Fox News.
Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president’s plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.
The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.
At the time, The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.
