Impeachment does not mean "removal from office" although it can end in that. It is an investigation and hearing (like a court, but in Congress so nothing like justice interferes) that can end in innocent, guilty, or guilty and unfit for office.

Since they are in the majority, the Republican party members who are approving clearly unfit nominations that the vast majority of voters object to in violation of the oath of office would have to vote guilty. I do not imagine enough of them have that much honor. Some of the ones that seem to have high personal honor seem to have committed to sacrificing their personal honor and standards to support the party policy. I find it difficult to imagine a successful impeachment happening before a major disaster, as it would require something that would force a total change in direction or major split in the Republican party.

I do pray I am wrong. If I am not, a major disaster is almost inevitable. For the country at least, and perhaps for the world.

Well, truth is, the root cause of the problems is, as always, the Congress.

We have, for many years, simply "put up with" certain things, such as:

• No Term Limits: Only the President has a term-limit at this time. Why doesn't everybody? Senators, Congressmen, Supreme Court Justices, Federal Judges, you name it. Nobody gets to remain in office "forever."
• Acceptance Of Bribery: The US Constitution doesn't accept it – calls it a "high crime" side-by-side with treason – so, why do we? Why do we read stories that actually enumerate just how much a cabinet office-holder bribed the Senators she faced? And why do these Senators get to accept the money?
• No "Vote of No Confidence." The Brits can do it – why can't we? The Vox Publica can throw your asterisk out of office – just because we don't like you anymore.

The thing is, an elected official will do what the public allows him/her to do. They're every bit as corrupt as you-or-I would be if given a similar chance. If you're not minding the store, don't walk in and not expect to see a mouse circus.

The President, whether he be a gentleperson or an assholeperson, really can't do much. "The President leads by persuasion." It takes the Congress. Always, the Congress. Keep your eyes squarely on those six-hundred-or-so people, be in their face (it's their job to wipe your spittle off their faces), and don't be distracted by a clown.

And the same is true in most countries. "If you want your country to be different, get involved." Peacefully. Oh yes, oh so peacefully. Determination wins the fight. (And the fights take place at many levels, including your own town or county. If you want to make a difference, be a difference. But be careful – you'll get signed-up for a committee!)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...36231802515457

Lionel Nation - What Exactly the Ninth Circuit Ruled in State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump

Okay, so what have we here ... "The Ninth Circuit" of the Judicial Branch of the US Government ... "now Decides™ to be the President." (The Executive Branch.)

So: "The Chief Executive Officer™ (the Executive Branch) can do whatever (S)He wants, unless the Courts of (Judicial Branch) Washington and/or Minnesota objects?!"

... In which case "any one-or-several of (the Federal Judges of ...) any of Fifty States can, at their pleasure, annul the Executive's privileges?!?!

... Even though the Legislative Branch granted the Executive Branch thus-and-such prerogatives?

Really? Is this really what we want?

So ... under our present Constitution ... prithee ... exactly who?!?!? ... is supposed to be "the Executive?!" Which One State actually rules the Oval Office? Washington? California? Minnesota? What, exactly, are "the Executive's privileges," if indeed (s)he has any [left]?

Indeed, it would seem to me that "The Ninth Circuit" became(!) The President of the United States. ("The entirety of The Executive Branch ...") by virtue of annulling The Executive's decision ... with the "only appeal" being in the Judicial branch: "the Supreme Court (ommmm....) is the actual Law-Givers™ of the Country." Is "The Executive Branch" to be merely a figurehead, serving in-name-only at the mercy of the various Circuit Courts?

Therefore ... (and, let us seriously discuss this matter ...) ... "why do we have 'an Executive Branch' at all," if the Executive may decide "only at the Judiciary's good pleasure?" If the Judiciary may at its pleasure interdict anything and everything that the Executive may say? Is this the "balance of power" that We, the People, actually want? And if not ... where should 'the Balance' be? (Careful... that's a very-loaded question.)

We must excuse our forefathers: they were stuck in Philadelphia in mid-summer, and air-conditioning had not yet been invented. They struck the best sweat-soaked compromises that they could strike ... at that time. But: "here we are, all 350+ million of us, right now ..." What say we?! How would we have our (koff, koff ...) Government™ decide this?

---
Aye, "We live in 'interesting times ...'"

I am no legal beagle, but form what I gather from all that - it sounds like you are making the case that even the 9th Circuit Court is unconstitutional or the very least ambiguous in it's status according to the constitution. I am also by no means well versed in the constitution make any sort of claim it's status. My head hurts now.

-edit

Or - maybe the ruling would be seen as obstructing a president and not actually offering a valid reason to reject said ban - but will ban it anyways?

You misunderstand. The court is not being the executive, they are doing EXACTLY what was designed into the constitution.

Each branch is a brake and counter to the other two. Congress makes the laws, but the president and executive branch execute. If the law is bad, selective or modified execution can reduce the damage. If the execution is flawed or the law is bad, the court is there to require that the law (or in this case presidential action) be frozen, modified, or erased in part or whole. ALL THREE are supposed to be guided by, and responsible for enforcing, the constitution on the other two branches in some way. That is the core of the "checks and balances" system that is our government.

In this case a court determined that the order was not constitutional and caused undue harm (both required for the stay) and on appeal it was judged as a valid claim. This is EXACTLY what the court system SHOULD decide. You may not agree. Unless one have a degree in law and experience in adjudicating such cases, it is unlikely that one's objection has merit.

I have no such degree, so my opinion is only a lay opinion and had no weight before the court. Were I to submit an opinion and it actually reached a judge, they would examine it for consideration anyway, because that is what judges DO. Then they would throw it out unless it actually had valid legal grounds for judgement. (There is a reason that multiple judges hear appeals, and that multiple lawyers my plead both sides. It is not a matter of simply saying what you think is correct, you have to support every related requirement of law, president, jurisdiction, effect, and more. This is a very complex and exacting process.) Note that the judgement in this case was not a flat "no" that takes a single word, it was 29 PAGES of judgement, analysis, comment, and opinion!

That seems a lot of "NO", but that is the kind of effort and result the is required of our judicial system. They sometimes make errors, but it is rare for an appeals court to make an error of any magnitude that can be addressed by additional appeal. When they do it can be appealed to a higher level until you reach the Supreme Court: the final arbiter. In a very important sense the Supreme Court does not really judge cases, they judge lower courts. If they lower court got everything right, the Supreme Court can simply decide to let it stand and not hear the case. IF they think the case is so complex that a lower court may not have considered all of the factors that pertain, or that they actually got it WRONG, then they are likely to hear the case and either vacate the results, confirm the results, or return the case in part or whole back to the lower court with additional instruction to modify their consideration.

Our judicial system is unique in the world, and we should be justly proud. It is NOT simple or easy to understand!

Exactly right. With regard to immigration specifically, the only mention you will see of it in the Constitution and Amendments is in Article I which is the article specifically delineating the responsibilities of the "legislative" branch. Quoted below,Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

The use of 'executive orders' in recent administrations has become ridiculous but the executive branch probably feels that is the only way to accomplish anything due to the extreme incompetence or laziness of the legislative branch. Particularly with the House as they are constantly running for re-election and thus spend a lot of time soliciting bribes (sometimes referred to as political contribuitons). Whether we agree or disagree with the rulings of the Supreme/Appellate courts, you will rarely find corruption in their ranks and a major reason for this is that they are appointed for life and do not have to solicit bribes to get re-elected.

Interestingly, you will find in this case that Congress did establish "rules for immigration," including enabling legislation that gave the exercised powers to the President. Now, I don't happen to agree with what the President is doing – but as the law is now written it is in fact lawful.

To be clear: "it is a ridiculous law."

What we see, however, is the Judiciary second-guessing and overturning the prerogatives given by the Legislature to the Executive. They're not questioning the legality of the law: they're blocking a specific exercise of it. "The Executive made a lawful declaration, but we don't agree. So, we're overturning the Executive's decision." But the Congress gave the Court no power of judicial review. The Constitution didn't contemplate that the Executive could make rules only at the pleasure of the Honorable Courts.

In fact, in the Constitution there is almost no authorization of anything that we routinely observe the Courts doing. Of all the Articles of the US Constitution, the one defining the Judicial Branch is the most terse. It basically creates a Supreme Court and that's the end of it. There is no concept of "unconstitutional." (At some point in the past, the US Supreme Court simply began declaring that authority over the actions of the Legislature and of the Executive, and no one objected at the time.) We have almost no Constitutional description of what the role of the Courts should be: we have only tradition.

Alas, it is precisely because Federal judges are "appointed for life" that their actions have become such a "political football." I'm of the opinion for this reason that no Federal officer should be appointed for life. I'm also in favor of the idea (actually implemented by the ill-fated Confederate States of America) that the President should serve one six-year term with no possibility of re-election. And, any public official should be subject to removal from office by the People, for any or for no reason at all. Everyone – including judges and justices – has a term limit, and once they have completed their term they do not get another one for the rest of their lives: they are barred from serving in that office, whatever it is, again.

We've really made no serious attempt to keep the US Constitution "up to date." The latest Amendment to be passed is actually the second of twelve paragraphs in the Bill of Rights document. We reference it as "holy writ," ascribing to it whatever hidden meaning is our pleasure at the time to accomplish the purposes at hand. But we almost never change it. It calls itself "the Supreme Law of the Land," but it clearly is not supreme in practice.

The relevant legislation is U.S.C. 1182(f) which can be found online at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182:

Boom! End of story: the President's actions are authorized by present law. Congress gave the President the singulare authority to "find," and then to "by proclamation," suspend the entry of ... any class of aliens ... and may impose any restrictions "he (and, he alone ...) deems appropriate," and keep them in place for as long as he (and, he alone ...) may choose. (He even has the authority to close the borders to "all aliens.")

This President did issue such a proclamation, unpopular though such action may be to some.

One Federal Judge confirmed the legality of his action.

However, "activist Judges," and an equally "activist" appeals court, simply decided to ignore what the Law says and to impose their own prerogatives upon the President to achieve a more-popular outcome.

This has been "business as usual" in the Federal court system for quite some time now. Some Judges rule on the Law. Other Judges try to create it, or to rule that it is what they want it to be. But, I don't think that this practice will continue.

It isn't the role of any Judge to decide what the law should be, nor to impose their own will upon the Executive. If the Congress grants powers to the Executive, he has those powers. If you don't agree with the President's decision, well, "that's why you're not the President." And if you simply don't like the law, well, "that's why you're not the Congress, either."

Whether or not you agree with the President's action, there can be no question that this action was authorized by USC 1182(f) and that it was carried out precisely as that section contemplated and for the reasons therein stated. (As Mr. Trump observed, "it could not be more clear.") The President, alone, is responsible for "finding," and for proscribing how long the restrictions that he(!) deems necessary may exist.

I don't care for this law ... don't care for it at all. But it is there, and it is crystal-clear. This is what the Congress has so far decided should be the Law, under the authority granted to it by the Constitution. The Courts have no power to suspend nor to change the lawful proclamations of the Executive. But, that didn't stop them from doing so.

So, this will clearly go to the supreme court - my only question is if this judge was not impartial and making his decision to his bias - thats it? No review of the judge will be taken or anything?

Actually, I would expect Trump to issue another proclamation more-directly referencing the enabling legislation.

... and thus defy the Courts, in the tradition of Presidents like Andrew Jackson.

Really, there's nothing for the Supreme Court to decide: the paragraph is right there, for anyone to see. The President of the United States does have, throughout the Code, the power to "find" and to "determine." The Congress has the power to set Immigration law, and it has done so ... this is part of that law.

I think it's a turkey. But, "there it is."

Today, Courts like to invoke vague bits of the US Constitution in order to stitch together "laws of their own choosing" which they "enact" by making "rulings" such as they have recently done. They seem to believe that Congress and the President can do whatever they want – as long as the Circuit agrees, y'know, "to let them do it."

Unfortunately, that also is not what the Law says.

Even though the President invoked an authority expressly granted to him, and even though some Californians don't seem to care for it (and, neither do I ...), it's still what the Law presently says, and anyone on Earth can read that single sentence. "It cannot be more clear" what the intent of Congress was. "It cannot be more clear" that they intended to authorize precisely the thing that this President decided to do.

Like it or not, the privilege of entering the country and of lawfully remaining in it is a privilege. And, notwithstanding what is said on any green-card or permit that you may now possess, U.S.C. 1182(f) grants to the President the right to suspend that privilege, or to impose restrictions upon it as he sees fit, perhaps for reasons known only to him. Unless you are a citizen, you are an alien. Your right to enter can be suspended or revoked. You can be ordered to leave, or removed by force. That is what "alien" means.

Even though the Constitution guarantees "equal protection under the law," blah blah blah, it also confers upon the Congress control of immigration and customs. A portion of which authority Congress has delegated to the Presidency. It never granted any authority upon the Judiciary to set aside the actions of the Executive nor to supersede or interpret the Proclamations which he is lawfully entitled to make.

Myself, I think this law is a turkey. I think that this Proclamation is a turkey, too. But, it is the Law, and the Court has no right to attempt to block it "just because a few judges think that it's a really mean thing to do to those sweet people from Yemen."

The Courts are now asking the Supreme Court to decide what eight people think the law ought to be. To overturn the decision made by a dual legislature of about 650 people in order to do what three Californians think "is the right thing to do." That's not a Court's prerogative. The Presidency does have both power and discretion. Probably, too much.

It seems either way - Trump is going to win on a political level anyways - but doesn't mean he won't stop the fight to reinstate the ban.

H.A. Goodman - DEMOCRATS LOSE POLITICAL BATTLE AFTER TRUMP LOSES IMMIGRANT BAN: Trump Showed Loyalty to GOP Voters

This is what the Court asked of the Trump administration, to show this was necessary immediately and they failed to provide any information.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it not a violation of the constitution to ban people from a specific country (China 1889). Jimmy Carter banned anyone from Iran from entering the country after the 1979 embassy takeover. No one objected to that. So the court isn't saying the Trump administration can't do it or that it is illegal or unconstitutional but that no evidence of what they are claiming has been shown.
The following from the actual court ruling:

Might have had a better case had they included Saudi Arabia on the list, a country which gave us Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda in addition to providing 14 of the 19 terrorists on 9-11.