Judge who ruled on Sanctuary Cities raised 200,000 for President Obama

 

Why do liberal Judges who have an obvious bias not have to recuse themselves? When a conservative has the slightest doubt, the left goes to war over their ability to be impartial.

 

Trump slams sanctuary city ruling, says opponents are 'judge shopping!' | Fox News

This is what the Left does.

 

It amazes me how a Federal judge can rule against a Federal law. Obviously an attempt to legislate from the bench.

This is what the Left does.

 

It amazes me how a Federal judge can rule against a Federal law. Obviously an attempt to legislate from the bench.

 

What do Federal judges do? Isn't it their job to interpret the law and rule on them?

Why do conservative judges not have to recuse themselves? The answer is "because that's not the standard for recusal and the system would grind to a halt if it was."

Judge who ruled on Sanctuary Cities raised 200,000 for President Obama

 

Why do liberal Judges who have an obvious bias not have to recuse themselves? When a conservative has the slightest doubt, the left goes to war over their ability to be impartial.

 

Trump slams sanctuary city ruling, says opponents are 'judge shopping!' | Fox News

 

The money was raised in 2008 when Orrick was a private citizen, not a judge. I will let the attorneys on here tell us if there is a conflict in this.

 

On the face of it, it appears to me to be less of a conflict than private business owners working in the White House making policy decisions that affect their businesses.

 

That does not make the judge ruling on the case right or wrong. I just thought it was a good time to post that and use one of the radical right's favorite lines that they think proves their point.... "Yeah but your guy/gal did the same thing! What about that!?"

What do Federal judges do? Isn't it their job to interpret the law and rule on them?

 

It is their job to make sure the law is followed, not wether the agree with it or not.

The money was raised in 2008 when Orrick was a private citizen, not a judge. I will let the attorneys on here tell us if there is a conflict in this.

 

On the face of it, it appears to me to be less of a conflict than private business owners working in the White House making policy decisions that affect their businesses.

 

That does not make the judge ruling on the case right or wrong. I just thought it was a good time to post that and use one of the radical right's favorite lines that they think proves their point.... "Yeah but your guy/gal did the same thing! What about that!?"

 

Whether he was a citizen or not still shows he could be biased because of raising such a large amount of money for one political parties candidate. He should have recused himself to keep the appearance of impartiality. This is the second jugde that has ruled against President Trump who has ties to the ex-president. On appearances it seems to be a concerted effort to thwart President Trumps EO's.

It is their job to make sure the law is followed, not wether the agree with it or not.

 

Yes, but what law? When there appear to be conflicts in the law, judges interpret what law applies.

Either way this ruling was bunk and purely political.

Whether he was a citizen or not still shows he could be biased because of raising such a large amount of money for one political parties candidate. He should have recused himself to keep the appearance of impartiality. This is the second jugde that has ruled against President Trump who has ties to the ex-president. On appearances it seems to be a concerted effort to thwart President Trumps EO's.

 

How many Federal judges have contributed to and/or raised money for political candidates prior to becoming a judge? For example, I believe Clarence Thomas had done this and he was approved by Congress and appointed to the Supreme Court.

Either way this ruling was bunk and purely political.

 

Deeper analysis please. Why was the ruling wrong? What law did the judge decide takes precedent? I honestly don't know the details. Can you tell me what law and precedent the judge used to rule against this?

How many Federal judges have contributed to and/or raised money for political candidates prior to becoming a judge? For example, I believe Clarence Thomas had done this and he was approved by Congress and appointed to the Supreme Court.

 

Sure, nothing to see here, move along. ... It's partisan politics, not fair impartial law. He should have recused himself.

Yes, but what law? When there appear to be conflicts in the law, judges interpret what law applies.

 

Point out the conflict. Other than the obvious one that the judge made a political ruling.

Deeper analysis please. Why was the ruling wrong? What law did the judge decide takes precedent? I honestly don't know the details. Can you tell me what law and precedent the judge used to rule against this?

 

The bottom line is if this ruling is legit then States need to sue the Federal Government across the board. The Fed has been bribing and blackmailing states with funding for decades on a whole host of issues.

Point out the conflict. Other than the obvious one that the judge made a political ruling.

 

The bottom line is if this ruling is legit then States need to sue the Federal Government across the board. The Fed has been bribing and blackmailing states with funding for decades on a whole host of issues.

 

On the specific ruling, I don't have an opinion yet on whether it is right or wrong. You two seem convinced it is wrong. I am asking for details on why it is wrong.

 

I do find it ironic that right wingers are arguing so strongly on this issue for the Federal government over state and local government.