9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

You do realize that one of the judges is a GWB appointee that also agreed with the other GWB appointee at the district court level. So they didn't make their opinions based on "party line." Again, right wing false narrative sticking its head out for BS again.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
The first time around, Trump's DOJ wasn't hitting on all cylinders. Sessions is now completely involved, and if I know Jeff, he'll have the other side looking for a hasty escape before they get their opening statement out. The man is a bulldog with gator teeth in a courtroom.

The other dynamic is that people are realizing the tide has turned on public opinion. People are quietly but quickly running away from the Democratic platform as the actions of the Democratic leaders and a small group of violence-prone supporters are showing their true faces. Warren getting sat out during the Sessions hearings was a shot across the bow, and I think it got more negative attention than some give it credit for. The District 9 judges may be getting cold feet over pulling the party line.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I'm sorry if this confuses you, but...

I lost all faith in Bush 43 after the Patriot Act.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, registered with the Republican Party.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, registered with the Democratic Party.

I have never voted straight ticket for either party.

I have voted for as many Democrats in my life as I have Republicans.

I presently am a fervent supporter of Impeachment proceedings against Governor Bob Bentley, a Republican.




I vote for the man, not the party. I don't care if Reagan himself appointed a judge... if the judge is wrong, the judge is wrong.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: buckwhizzle

I think it means they're afraid a radical Islamic terrorist attack might occur while the ban is still terminated...and the Left (along with the 9th.) will be blamed for allowing it to happen.

Maybe the Assad interview scared them.

Went to him expecting him to say extremists aren't infiltrating the refugees and he answered saying that's exactly what they've been doing.

a reply to: TheRedneck

These are certainly interesting times.

But with regard to the ruling, it's pretty amazing. It's hard to understand how it will be allowed to stand. This new standing rationale is a profound expansion on state power and a significant blow to federalism. Ironic, that it came from the left, don't you think?

If you lost all faith in GWB after the patriot act, when will you lose faith in Trump when he ran for the little guy in the rust belt and south, but opened the flood gates for corruption that will put its foot firmly on the neck of the little guy?

This guy is a greater fraud than GWB. The entire world sees it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I'm sorry if this confuses you, but...

I lost all faith in Bush 43 after the Patriot Act.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, registered with the Republican Party.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, registered with the Democratic Party.

I have never voted straight ticket for either party.

I have voted for as many Democrats in my life as I have Republicans.

I presently am a fervent supporter of Impeachment proceedings against Governor Bob Bentley, a Republican.




I vote for the man, not the party. I don't care if Reagan himself appointed a judge... if the judge is wrong, the judge is wrong.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

The 9th circuit contains 18 judges appointed by Democrats and 7 by Republicans.

One of my friend's father is one of those judges. So what is your point?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

The 9th circuit contains 18 judges appointed by Democrats and 7 by Republicans.

originally posted by: SeekingAlpha
One of my friend's father is one of those judges. So what is your point?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SeekingAlpha

The 9th circuit contains 18 judges appointed by Democrats and 7 by Republicans.

I was pointing out the breakdown of the court.

whats yours?

Was your fathers friend appointed by a Democrat or Republican?

a reply to: loam

It's pretty obvious to me that the far left (I don't know what else to call them) has gotten so corrupt they cannot even see their own hypocrisy. It was funny during the election to watch them try to trip Trump up but fall flat on their own faces. Now, though, it's just plain sad and pitiful.

At least this time around, it seems the public is watching.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm curious of your opinion on if the full 9th or later SCOTUS overturns the ruling, on what grounds will it take place?

a reply to: TheRedneck

So let's use the term the near left for the remainder. When do they start to pull back on the reigns? Can they even do that? Or will the far left drag them, and perhaps the rest of everyone else, over the edge?

I used to think politics was broken during the Clinton/Bush/Obama period. But this is a whole new kind of dysfunction.

a reply to: loam

The supreme court will overturn he 9ths / district court ruling as unconstitutional. Both courts ignored the constitution and the presidents sole authority in the refugee area and the delegated immigration authority by Congress.

The executive order dealing with immigration / refugees is "nonjusticable" and falls under the political question doctrine established by the Supreme Court.

The only realm of refugees and immigration the federal courts can deal with reside solely in the realm of a person having their constitutional rights violated. Those individuals must be inside the US and must make the challenge on their own and not through the 3rd party doctrine. States have no standing and cannot bring a challenge on behalf of non citizens.

When an executive action is questioned the authority must be looked at. If an executive action falls within the constitution and is the sole authority of the president (refugee) or is delegated to the president by congress lawfully the judicial branch has no authority to get involved. The manner in which the Executive exercises that authority is a "political question" best left to the voters to remedy.

a reply to: SeekingAlpha

I will lose faith in Trump if and when Trump does something that is obviously against the best interests of the country. I have seen nothing thus far that falls into that category. I have disagreed with minor aspects of his positions, but nothing of great consequence.

I will not, under any circumstances, lose faith in him because of what some pundit says. I will make up my own mind. As I see things now, the very fact that so many are willing to say or do anything to hurt him just because he won an election, irrespective of the consequences for the country, strengthens my respect for him.

I have asked this question before of others, and have yet to get a straight answer: why do you want ISIS operating in the United States?

TheRedneck

a reply to: loam

Hopefully that term will not offend anyone. At least we have here differentiated from the majority who lean left, whom I respect, and the out-of-control fringe that uses riots to protest a free election and thinks they are above the law.

I actually lean left on some issues, primarily social issues. I support legal abortion, even though I personally am opposed to it; I support a complete end to the War on Drugs and legalization of marijuana; I support stem cell research (although I do worry about creating a black market for baby parts); I oppose the flat tax and support a more progressive tax plan than Trump does; and I stand firmly in opposition to property confiscation prior to conviction, just to name a few.

What I see happening is the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party as we know it. The near left will leave and probably form a new party, along with some moderate Independents. The far left will either recant their extremist views, be arrested, or spend the rest of their lives inconsequential to their radical causes. Similar transformations have happened before: the original parties in the United States were the Whigs and the Tories, not the Democrats and the Republicans.

The scariest part of this to me is that the Republicans will have free reign during this transformation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, regardless of what letter is next to one's name.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

But they only need to address the standing issue, avoiding the need to address all of the rest...save any dicta the choose to provide. Don't you agree?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I could have written that post myself. Completely agree with all of it. Didn't realize we had such similar views.

Regarding the GOP, the Warren move is worrisome. It smacks of their proclivity to overreach. Hopefully, they don't make that mistake again, imo.

a reply to: loam

Surprising about our views, isn't it?

Warren: I didn't see it as much of an over-reach as an example set. They could have handled her much gentler, but this way she became a martyr. Martyrs are generally considered a positive for their cause, but depending on the circumstances, they can also be negatives. The circumstances here emphasized Warren's unrestrained use of the race card, a very sore spot for the majority of Trump supporters, including the crossover and independent vote. So in one fell swoop, the Democratic Party now has as its face a perceived (and IMO an actual) race-baiter who embodies the idea of corruption.

My opinion, anyway.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Except, I don't like the optics of shutting down speech, however crazy, in Congress. I have always believed that there is no better rebuttal to a flawed manner of behavior or thinking than the pure example of it. Although, I suppose that was still accomplished and because of the GOP action even highlighted.

Crazy times.

A judges take on it.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: buckwhizzle


For a Judge to make that request, that is unusual.
If granted it would mean all judges in that circuit would
rehear and then rule again. Very interesting!

ETA: Rule 35 En Banc Determination
www.law.cornell.edu...

Banana republic! Can you imagine setting that precedent?



Well, what I hope is done is a rewritten ban put up, hopefully Saudi and Pakistan can be added as well.

And the 9th Circuit/Circus can just be abolished. Gone!