I can see this judge citing contempt of court but I can also see a Justice of the Supreme Court notifying this judge of a review for pf lower court contempt.
It’s a cat fight.
It’s not a ruling on a law, it’s a ruling on an executive action supported by the Constitution. That an El Paso judge doesn’t like the ruling is irrelevant.
So once again, the question is how you come up with ‘impeachable’?
This might help you out.
The previous ruling in the President’s favor had to do with using finds marked for military construction in the construction of the Wall. The President won but he could not initially ignore the challenge because the appropriation was rooted with authority of Congress which is integral to making law. In other words, the previous case was rooted in law. So the Executive Branch was required to meet the challenge in court.
In this case, the judge’s challenge is to the President’s authority to declare a national emergency and to respond to that emergency by building a Wall. The judge cannot rule a law has been violated, he is ruling that the President’s declaration is unlawful and must show which laws were violated by the President’s actions. Now the judge might have a list of laws violated but they fall into the category of infractions which are handled by the Federal Court of Claims. They are not impeachable offenses, they are possibly at most infractions which can be used to recover damages in claims court.
If the Judge thinks he can override a Presidential Declaration, then that is overreaching and the higher courts will discipline this judge
In our righteous indignation, we forget that impeachment is a political process. The misdemeanors and high crimes are whatever Pelosi and Nadler say they are. The procedures governing impeachment are whatever Pelosi and Nadler say they are. There is no constitutional requirement of due process for impeachment.