First of all, Federal judges can only be removed for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" (Article II, Section 4). If simply being wrong was a high crime or misdemeanor, you'd already be a life prisoner.
They can only be impeached for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Their Federal Judicial Districts can be eliminated and reconstituted for any damn reason Congress pleases.
Violation of an American citizen's right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion is as high a "high crime and misdemeanor" as it gets.
You don't seem to get this 'We the People..." thing.
Second, the judge did not order "The young lady who was to give the valedictory address" not to pray. In fact, the appeals court noted that the judge's order "did not expressly address the involvement of the valedictorian in the graduation ceremony." The students (even remotely) in question were, according to the school's own program, slated to deliver an "invocation" and "benediction." If you don't understand the argument that government-sponsored "invocations" and "benedictions" violate the Constitution, that is just a piece with the rest of your "Egnorance."
Oh, I could'a sworn Judge Biery dictated a list of religious words the kid(s) couldn't say. I guess this was all such a big misunderstanding...
Third, the judge did not issue the order against the students (and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed against them).
Of course a penalty could be imposed against the kids-- detention, suspension, expulsion, denial or revocation of diploma- by the school district, which is directed by the judge to enforce his ruling.
[Jude Biery] ordered that:
["]The District, through its officials, shall instruct the students previously selected to deliver the "invocation" and "benediction" to modify their remarks to be statements of their own beliefs as opposed to leading the audience in prayer. These students, and all other persons scheduled to speak during the graduation ceremony, shall be instructed not to present a prayer, to wit, they shall be instructed...["]
Federal judges always enforce their rulings via government intermediaries (police, school officials,...).
Did you think Judge Biery was going to attend the graduation and throttle the kids himself?
"...that they may not ask audience members to "stand," "join in prayer," or "bow their heads," they may not end their remarks with "amen" or "in [a deity's name] we pray," and they shall not otherwise deliver a message that would commonly be understood to be a prayer, nor use the word "prayer" unless it is used in the student's expression of the student's personal belief, as opposed to encouraging others who may not believe in the concept of prayer to join in and believe the same concept."
Religious speech prohibited by a Federal Court ruling:
...they may not ask audience members to stand...join...in...prayer...bow...their...heads...amen...in... a [deity's name]...we...pray...prayer..."
"Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] or abridging the freedom of speech..."
"...The students may in stating their own personal beliefs speak through conduct such as kneeling to face Mecca, the wearing of a yarmulke or hijab or making the sign of the cross..."
The judge deigns to permit discrete expression of limited Constitutional rights. Perhaps we should rename them 'Constitutional permissions, conferred by judiciary..'
We have a right to kneel to Mecca, wear a yarmulke or hijab, or sign the cross. This right is not granted by judges. It is endowed by our [deity's name].
The gesture appropriate to the judge's ruling is a finger.
Fourth, if a police officer announced that he or she was going to go to your house, illegally search it and beat you up in the process, would a court have to wait until that happened before issuing an order to against it?
Are you asserting that a teenager's prayer is analogous to an unlawful violent assualt by a police officer?
The only violation of the Constitution that I see here is the judge's ruling, which contains an implicit threat of violence. Violation of a federal court ruling is subject to punishment by arrest, fine and imprisonment.
The genuine analogy is between the violations of citizens' rights by the police and by the judge. The kids can't violate anyone's Constitutional rights, because they're private citizens. The judge can violate someone's Constitutional rights, because he, unlike the kids, is a government official.
An order by a federal judge that citizens not speak religious words is an explicit violation of the Constitution.
And the judge's order is obviously aimed at the kids; the school is merely the enforcent agent, and the judge has threatened the school with prosecution if they do not enforce his ruling against the kids.
It is analogous to an order by a judge that police prohibit a citizen from criticizing the President. The judge's defense that his order 'only applied to the police' would be nonsense. And the judge would be removed from the bench.
"Irreparable harm" is a term of legal art that you are as "Egnorant" of as biological science. It simply means that the complainant can not be made "whole" if the court waits until after the fact to address the wrong.
How is the atheist kid "irreparably harmed" in any sense by listening to a prayer? In what way does someone else's prayer render the tender atheist un-"whole"?
Fifth, the appeals court reversed the judge's order in no small part because the school district obeyed his order and "abandoned including the words "invocation" and "benediction" on the program."
Right. If everyone does what da judge says, nobody gets hurt.
In short, you are bloviating (once again) on a subject you have no knowledge of.
I have a right to
There can be rational arguments about whether the judge in this case was right in the first instance.
The judge can make them, to his next employer.
Please sign the petition to remove him.