The Los Angeles Times is reporting that immigration judges are quitting or retiring early because of President Trump. One who said he wasn’t going to was Judge Charles Honeyman, who was nearing retirement but vowed to stay on as long as Donald Trump was president to keep himself from being replaced by “an ideologue with an anti-immigration agenda.”
Immigration Judge Charles Honeyman was nearing retirement, but he vowed not to leave while Donald Trump was president and risk being replaced by an ideologue with an anti-immigration agenda.
But this month, he called it quits.
Here's why: https://t.co/YMapYLQ3ek
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 27, 2020
Why? The Los Angeles Times reports:
He pushed back against the administration the best he could. He continued to grant asylum to victims of domestic violence even after the Justice Department said that was not a valid reason to. And he tried to ignore demands to speed through cases without giving them the consideration he believed the law required.
But as the pressure from Washington increased, Honeyman started having stomach pains and thinking, “There are a lot of cases I’m going to have to deny that I’ll feel sick over.”
This month, after 24 years on the bench, the 70-year-old judge called it quits.
Well, he pushed back against the administration as best he could, because he didn’t want to be replaced by some activist judge with an agenda.
Let’s replace all of them with Trump judges.
— #ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) January 27, 2020
Amen my brother from another mother @ScottPresler!
— Maria Crocifissa World Champ Eagle’s Fan (@njgop1) January 28, 2020
It’s hilarious that the media reports the stuff here like it’s bad https://t.co/ZLhGN9M6SK
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) January 29, 2020
This is basically a piece about a few far left judges who are upset they have to do their job and deport people who don’t meet the requirements.
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) January 27, 2020
Fine. More judges for Trump to appoint.
— Cari Kelemen (@KelemenCari) January 27, 2020
Legislating from the bench
— JimmyNorm (@slimjimnorm) January 28, 2020
Figured as much. "Oh, the emotional toll of upholding the law!"
— Mike Partyka (@MichaelJPartyka) January 28, 2020
So this judge is openly admitting he's an activist.
— JimNordren (@JNordren) January 27, 2020
Goodbye and good riddance to leftists, open border judges. Retire to Venezuela.
— Name Added Here (@DeepStateEnemy1) January 27, 2020
— BigD4DJT (@BigD4UT) January 27, 2020
— C.H. Neff (@CHNeff1) January 28, 2020
All judges that don't apply the law or write new law from the bench should retire.
— Text TRUMP to 88022 and #TrumpTheEstablishment⭐ (@jamesldewitt) January 28, 2020
Translation… He fears being replaced by an impartial jurist rather than a fellow Leftwing activist
— Super Elite Liberation Force (@jasonmn) January 28, 2020
An activist political judge vows to remain on the bench because there's no place on the bench for activist political judges. @latimes doesn't see the problem.
— Today in DANistan (@RealDanLee) January 27, 2020
Thank god he quit! One down and several more to go😍😍😍
— Santiago Gonzalez (@Santiago_Cubano) January 27, 2020
— jonny hopkins (@mnrube17) January 27, 2020
More judges for Trump to appoint? Yes, please!
— Lissa Merriman (@lissasno1fan) January 27, 2020
— ❌Tom Morgan❌ (@Tomorgan74) January 27, 2020
So long, farewell! pic.twitter.com/JbHPRs3Ww3
— Shemeka Michelle (@ShemekaMichelle) January 27, 2020
— Trump4EVA Text TRUMP45 to 88022⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@mumma12345) January 27, 2020
Can’t get away with using the bench for activism.
There, saved everyone a click.
— Ron Bassilian (R) (@Ron4California) January 28, 2020
"Dozens of other judges concerned about their independence have done the same"
I'm no lawyer, but JUDGES ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.
Their position is to interpret the law legislators have made as the they intended it. Not how the judge would like it to be.
— Ron Bassilian (R) (@Ron4California) January 28, 2020
A judge with a chip on his shoulder is a horrible look.
He's basically admitting he's a partisan hack.
— Uranium Covfefe (@zoochum) January 27, 2020
— RickInTennessee🇺🇸 (@RickInTennessee) January 28, 2020
The whole article is a judge complaining that he has to do his job for once in his life. Who cares? If you can't take the heat…….. pic.twitter.com/MDDbitI2vS
— Mr.Taxi666 (@ArchibaldLeach6) January 27, 2020
Spoiler: Because he's a liberal hack.
— 🇭🇰 Doctor Terrapin Andii 🇹🇼 (@Andiiterrapin) January 27, 2020
Fantastic! The Trump administration has fought Democrats tooth, and nail over enforcing existing immigration laws that Democrats have failed to enforce. There's a desperate need for an ideological balance, and a nice originalist nonbiased judge will now take Mr. Honeymana place..
— Matt Stevens (@TSC_Stevens) January 28, 2020
Enforcing the law and interpreting it as written isn’t being “anti-immigration” at all.
Don’t conflate immigrants with illegal aliens.
— Neil Axelrod (@NeilAxelrod) January 28, 2020
Music to my ears. GTFO! pic.twitter.com/PIVvZ4Pd9l
— Burt Fister (@BurtFister) January 28, 2020
— American (@America84864855) January 27, 2020
— Roger O. Martin (@RogerOMartin1) January 28, 2020
Good. If you can’t rule based on the law you need to leave. Don’t let the door hit you………
— DregsHolmes⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@Sherlokette) January 27, 2020
It would be a shame if he were replaced by a judge with an agenda that wasn’t his agenda.
Hot take: Playboy contributor and alleged lawyer proclaims that SCOTUS 'just basically canceled the Statue of Liberty' with immigration ruling https://t.co/FC9zMMqjPO
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) January 27, 2020