Nutty (Wizbang)

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies is at it again-

The Ombudsman at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (the portion of the old INS that does green cards and citizenship) has a new report out on improving naturalization ceremonies (in pdf here). A lot of it's administrative stuff, but there are a couple of gems about judges who sometimes administer the oath of citizenship. First this:
Inappropriate Religious or Political Remarks. In one judicial ceremony, an official participant of the ceremony made explicit sectarian religious remarks when discussing the origins of freedom; in another, the judge utilized his welcoming remarks to make pointed and partisan political comments. Specifically, the judge stated that persons should "get off their dead [posteriors] and oppose the war."

But this one is even more outrageous:

Oath ceremonies Conducted in a Foreign Language. In one district with a large Spanish-speaking population, the judge administered the oath ceremony (introductions, directions, speech, artistic presentations, etc.) entirely in Spanish, with the exception of administering the oath itself in English and Spanish. A USCIS official polled the audience, by show of hands, to determine if every applicant present understood Spanish; despite the fact that several persons raised their hands indicating they did not speak Spanish, the presiding judge proceeded in Spanish. While certain waivers exist, no person is naturalized who cannot demonstrate an understanding of the English language.

I'm going to try to find out who this judge was, though they probably won't tell me. But if his name does get out, it seems to me this is grounds for impeachment.

The judges are dumb, but since when is grounds for impeachment. Lets look at what the constitution says-

Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behaviour", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment.

In the history of this republic 13 judges have been impeached by the House and 6 have been removed by the Senate. Impeachment, rightly or wrongly, is used as a last resort for those judges and officials who break the laws of the land, not for conducting themselves in a dumb way. If members of Congress were to start impeachment for every judge they disagreed with, they wouldn't have time for anything else. It would apply on both the left and the right.

I'm probably expecting too much deep thinking from Krikorian. His post was titled '"I Absolutely and Entirely Renounce..." which had nothing to do with what happened.

Comments (4)

Impeachment, right... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | December 19, 2008 11:55 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

Anon Y. Mous:

Impeachment, rightly or wrongly, is used as a last resort for those judges and officials who break the laws of the land, not for conducting themselves in a dumb way.

The idea that incompetence is not grounds for removal of an appointed government official is just stupid. And most especially, a federal judge with a lifetime appointment. Of course "good behavior", as originally intended in the constitution, means more than the ability to abstain from committing crimes.

Do you really believe that the founding fathers intended that the people's only recourse is to just wait for the idiot to die while he continues to screw things up?

Posted on December 19, 2008 11:55

I'm probably expec... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by Anon Y. Mous | December 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

You do seem quick to denigrate the intelligence of others. In your case, probably not such a good strategy. From the oath to become a citizen of the United States of America:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

So, Kirkorian puts up a post expressing outrage that a federal judge is administering the oath to be come a citizen of the United States, in the language of our new citizen's country of origin. He uses as the title of the post the section of the oath where our new citizen renounces his allegiance to his country of origin, and you think that the title has nothing to do with the post.

You really don't get it, do you?

Posted on December 19, 2008 13:24

> ... Congress may remov... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by Arthur | December 19, 2008 10:27 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Arthur:

> ... Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment.

The judge behaved badly*. That's grounds for impeachment - so why do you argue otherwise?

*yes, by my standards.

Posted on December 19, 2008 22:27

Okay, you disagree with the... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Oyster | December 20, 2008 7:21 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Oyster:

Okay, you disagree with the impeachment angle. So ... do nothing? Tell him he's "dumb" and move on? What would you recommend? I say suspend him from the bench for a period of time without pay. That's what would happen to me at my job (at the VERY least) and no one would even blink.

Posted on December 20, 2008 07:21