It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Robart has some conflicts of interests

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+9 more 
posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Judge James Robart is the judge who initiated the temporary restraining order against 5 key parts of the now famous Trump Executive Order that "adjusts" the way people can travel from 7 countries listed as "terror" contributors.

Taking some close looks at Judge Robart's outside activities reveals some possible conflicts of interests !!

One is the fact that he has occasionally done pro bono (free) work with refugees.

He also apparently made some comments about Black Lives Matter and police shootings while on the Bench.

Could be some conflicts if his opinions get in the way of the Constitution (or the other way around).

Article has a run-down on the Judge....
James Robart: 5 things to know about judge who blocked travel ban






posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well..

All I see is difference of opinions, not conflicts of interests.

Which conflicts of interest do you see?


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

According to a video posted on the federal court’s website, Robart said “black lives matter” during a court hearing in August 2016. Citing FBI statistics, he said, “Police shootings resulting in deaths involved 41% black people, despite being only 20% of the population living in those cities.”


Judicial hacktavist.



+6 more 
posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yeah. Citing statistics and stuff.
Shameful.


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: neo96

Yeah. Citing statistics and stuff.
Shameful.


What is a Judges job description again ?

And it aint tv shows like Boston Legal with a script.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Citing or cherry picking?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

We're going to find out shortly the Judge Robart has lost his mind.

Who does he think he is, putting the interests of foreigners before the citizens of this country?

The people voted for Trump to be the president. Obviously the people want Trump to keep the foreigners out.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Judge James Robart is the judge who initiated the temporary restraining order against 5 key parts of the now famous Trump Executive Order that "adjusts" the way people can travel from 7 countries listed as "terror" contributors.

Taking some close looks at Judge Robart's outside activities reveals some possible conflicts of interests !!

One is the fact that he has occasionally done pro bono (free) work with refugees.

He also apparently made some comments about Black Lives Matter and police shootings while on the Bench.

Could be some conflicts if his opinions get in the way of the Constitution (or the other way around).

Article has a run-down on the Judge....
James Robart: 5 things to know about judge who blocked travel ban






He s a Republican appointed lawyer who has read the Constitution.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
To be perfectly clear.



Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.[1] The definition of judicial activism, and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue, particularly in the United States. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers.


en.wikipedia.org...

Conversely.



Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.[


en.wikipedia.org...

Forgive me for wanting Federal court judges that are unelected to practice the second.
edit on 4-2-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




What is a Judges job description again ?
In a nutshell, to render his legal opinions.


Forgive me for wanting Federal court judges that are unelected to practice the second.
Has Robart struck down a lot of laws?

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen


One is the fact that he has occasionally done pro bono (free) work with refugees.




That is not a conflict of interest, neither is anything else mentioned. Perhaps if you were to say the majority of his work was being paid by refugees you would have a point but doing pro bono work no way implies a conflict of interest.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
a reply to: xuenchen

Well..

All I see is difference of opinions, not conflicts of interests.

Which conflicts of interest do you see?


Conflicts of alt-Opinions.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
How is working with special needs kids or at-risk kids in the community a conflict of interest?




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




In a nutshell, to render his legal opinions.


Think someone means his alt left opinions.

And if you can find 2016 FBI states.

I'd appreciate it.

All I found was the 2015 stats and it doesn't jive.

2015

edit on 4-2-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
There is this obvious Draconian law in place that isn't fair concerning immigration. The problem is how do you moderate the intent? You could even look at immigration restriction as a protection against carpet baggers that would turn them into slaves.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DupontDeux
Which conflicts of interest do you see?


Well, he did disagree with God-Emperor Trump, isn't that enough?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cigarettes
a reply to: xuenchen

We're going to find out shortly the Judge Robart has lost his mind.

Who does he think he is, putting the interests of foreigners before the citizens of this country?

The people voted for Trump to be the president. Obviously the people want Trump to keep the foreigners out.


Judge Robart and CNN are of like minds. Could there be America-haters presiding over and running key American institutions?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cigarettes
a reply to: xuenchen

We're going to find out shortly the Judge Robart has lost his mind.

Who does he think he is, putting the interests of foreigners before the citizens of this country?

The people voted for Trump to be the president. Obviously the people want Trump to keep the foreigners out.


Just the foreigners who happen to come from countries that even the Obama administration declared terrorist threats, and only until the broken system is fixed so they can be thoroughly vetted.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cigarettes

The people voted for Trump to be the president. Obviously the people want Trump to keep the foreigners out.


Nah! That's not obvious at all.

The people voted for Trump, to keep Hillary Clinton out of the oval office.

That's all.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
How is working with special needs kids or at-risk kids in the community a conflict of interest?



It probably isn't.






top topics



 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join