If a judge feels “humiliated” and “dehumanized” when law officers do the job they are sworn to do, that judge should step down. Just one more argument for breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Quote:Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws, according to a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The judge’s cry of outrage came when he could not block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children.

“We are unable to prevent [Andres] Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system,” complained Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wishes to extend citizens’ rights to illegal foreign migrants. He said:

“We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz’s request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government’s action in this case fair or just. …

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...res-judge/

The judge needs to go. There is a difference in writing a dissent, and expressing personal frustration in having to enforce the laws of this country. Allowing him to stay would be unfair and unjust to every American citizen and immigrant who came here legally.

Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

I'm sorry, I missed where this 9th circuit judge voiced a religious objection to deporting this illegal immigrant.

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

why must you turn every single thread that you touch into an alphabet soup thread?

At least the judge recognized that they could not rule based on personal dogma. That's good.

Now if they can just learn not to complain about irrelevancies in their rulings.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(06-06-2017 09:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

I'm sorry, I missed where this 9th circuit judge voiced a religious objection to deporting this illegal immigrant.

OK, so its just Baptist officials that can nullify the law in their official capacities as government officials.

I got it.

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

Whoever had Post #3 in the "How quickly Tom will play the Gay card" pool, please come to the box office to pick up your winnings.

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

One trick pony strikes again.

(06-06-2017 09:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

I'm sorry, I missed where this 9th circuit judge voiced a religious objection to deporting this illegal immigrant.

OK, so its just Baptist officials that can nullify the law in their official capacities as government officials.

I got it.

The only thing you've got is a big jug of crazy juice if you even remotely believe a fraction of the sh*t you post.

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

Government bureaucrats are there to faithfully execute the laws, whatever they may be, and regardless of their personal opinions or views. The alternative is resignation.

Judicial branch is there to apply the law as it is written to specific cases without regard to their personal feelings, partisan political views, or beliefs. The alternative is resignation.

(06-06-2017 09:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

I'm sorry, I missed where this 9th circuit judge voiced a religious objection to deporting this illegal immigrant.

OK, so its just Baptist officials that can nullify the law in their official capacities as government officials.

I got it.

Dude stop derailing threads.

(06-06-2017 09:06 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(06-06-2017 09:03 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ah, but refusing to serve Gay people....oh that's personal freedom and prerogative of the government official.

Do I have this correct?

I'm sorry, I missed where this 9th circuit judge voiced a religious objection to deporting this illegal immigrant.

OK, so its just Baptist officials that can nullify the law in their official capacities as government officials.

I got it.

Only in your mind.

Maybe the judge should serve in the Legislative branch of the government instead of the Judicial.