The key point for everybody to know about the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's opinion regarding President Donald Trump's executive order regarding immigration is that the three judges failed to discuss, or even acknowledge the existence of, the primary law that supports the E.O.
Title 8 United States Code, section 1182(f), which was enacted as section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is entitled "Suspension of Entry or Imposition of Restrictions by President" and states (italics added):
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
On January 27, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13769, entitled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States."
The executive order expressly cited 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) and quoted its language three times
President Trump further emphasized the importance of 8 USC section 1182(f) by reading it to the Major County Sheriffs' Association and Major Cities Chiefs Association in Washington, D.C. on February 8, 2017. P
resident Trump told the crowd that "a bad high school student" would understand 8 USC section 1182(f)....
The three judges who issued the unanimous opinion were William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland.
These judges did not cite to, discuss, or quote from 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). They did not quote from those parts of the executive order that cited or quoted 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). If your knowledge about this case were restricted to what is in the opinion by these judges, you would not know that 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) exists. For these three judges, 8 USC, sec. 1182(f) is the law that never was.
All three of these judges were required to take the oath specified in 28 USC, sec. 453:...
Did judges Canby, Clifton, and Friedland each "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon" them "as judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States"?
Their duty was to interpret and apply the law, specifically, 8 USC, sec. 1182(f). If they believe that the law does not apply here, they had a duty to explain why. If they believe that the law is unconstitutional, they had a duty to explain why. They violated their duty. They violated their oath.
If you had to make a list of things that a judge could do that warrants impeachment, deliberately ignoring an applicable law that contradicts the judge's opinion would be on the list.