Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Canuck, Feb 7, 2017.
Simple question. Let's see who gets bragging rights.
The Ninth Court is the most overturned Federal Court in history. They seldom follow the law. They have neither the desire or talent.
So yes, they will claim a President has no say in immigration even when it has already been decided.
They have jurisdiction which is all that matters when it comes to the Constitution. Like it or not, we (well you down south) will be bound by their decision unless and until it is overruled.
Many will argue that Trump doesn't have the talent to be President but he is. So isn't it the same when you argue that the Nine Circuit judges have no talent?
We are seeing the Constitution's checks and balances play out in real life. No one said it was perfect but it is beauty in motion to watch, for me at least.
The 9th Circuit demonstrates a failure in the checks and balances every time they legislate from the bench. The courts apply the laws, they do not write them. It's akin to jury nullification. It is unethical and defeats the legal system. As a juror, you might think the law is not just in the case presented before you, but you are compelled to render a verdict based on the evidence, not your personal distaste for that particular law. Judges should have at least the same integrity as the layman jurors of your community.
So you're saying that if Roe v Wade, for instance, were to reach the court - they have no business hearing any arguments or making a ruling?
If Roe v Wade was already decided? They should not overturn it if they personally believe abortion is wrong.
That comment applies to any judge and not just the 9th Circuit. But to correct it, courts can't legislate from the bench. They can create precedents but not legislation. Any precedent created is subject to appeal (unless it's the SCOTUS) and there's little doubt that the 9th Circuit Court's decision, regardless of how they rule, will be appealed.
Again, it's the checks and balances of the Constitution in action.
You mean they SHOULDN'T legislate from the bench. On that I agree.
The 9th circuit, by far the largest appeals circuit and with the highest volume of cases, issues around 8,000 decisions in a typical year and maybe around 10 of them are overturned by the US Supreme Court.
NOTE: I was a bit out-of-date. The 9th's caseload is now over 12,000 a year. See later posts.
How 'liberal' reputation of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is overblown, scholars say
A classic example of the 9th trying to force an agenda was the Arizona state law that requires official state communications to be in English.
Ginsburg wrote for the unanimous SCOTUS:
Federal courts lack competence to rule definitively on the meaning of state legislation, see, e.g., Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, 86-87, 25 L. Ed. 2d 68, 90 S. Ct. 788 (1970), nor may they adjudicate challenges to state measures absent a showing of actual impact on the challenger, see, e.g., Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 110, 22 L. Ed. 2d 113, 89 S. Ct. 956 (1969). The Ninth Circuit, in the case at hand, lost sight of these limitations. The initiating plaintiff, Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez, sought federal-court resolution of a novel question: the compatibility with the Federal Constitution of a 1988 amendment to Arizona's Constitution declaring English "the official language of the State of Arizona"-- "the language of . . . all government functions and actions." Ariz. Const., Art. XXVIII, §§ 1(1), 1(2). Participants in the federal litigation, proceeding without benefit of the views of the Arizona Supreme Court, expressed diverse opinions on the meaning of the amendment. ...
The Ninth Circuit had no warrant to proceed as it did. The case had lost the essential elements of a justiciable controversy and should not have been retained for adjudication on the merits by the Court of Appeals. We therefore vacate the Ninth Circuit's judgment, and remand the case to that court with directions that the action be dismissed by the District Court. We express no view on the correct interpretation of Article XXVIII or on the measure's constitutionality.
It's pretty hard to get the entire court against you. That has happened way over a dozen times with the 9th.
They also have the highest percentage, not just the highest number. Even the American Bar Assoc thinks they are screwy.
Sure, but the numbers of overturned cases we are talking about are minuscule and thus the modest overturn ratio difference between the 9th versus other circuits hardly results in any meaningful difference in absolute terms.
Cases accepted for review by the Supreme Court are often at likely risk of being overturned (that's why they were accepted...). This is also true for circuits other than the 9th.
You originally said "They [the 9th] seldom follow the law". That's obvious nonsense.
On first thought, I agreed with this. But then on second thought they really CAN'T legislate. But I will agree they SHOULDN'T create any precedents that are in conflict with legislation.
On the issue of how many times a Court has been overruled, let's remember we have no ruling yet. If they overturn the ban, I wonder what McRat will say about them?
The only relevant issue is jurisdiction. Court's decisions must be complied by unless and until overturned, regardless of the Court's statistics on any issue.
The last thing we want is anarchy -- that's what happens when we fail to respect court rulings.
Checks and balances may be a good thing but the law has been settled. A "District" judge is overstepping his authority. Presidents have used this numerous times in the past. The only reason it is even being argued is due to the hysteria surrounding anything Trump does. This section is VERY clear:
Here's a recent Prize Winner (Oct 2016). The 9th defies a SCOTUS ruling, then it's sent back, and one of them STILL thinks he overrules the Supreme Court:
No matter what the 9th rules, at the end of the day they are still an expensive embarrassment. Arizona wants to leave their jurisdiction.
Gov. Ducey Wants Arizona Out of the Ninth Circuit
a recent article on this topic
GOP eyes new push to break up California court
Now, I'm no attorney; just a poor bewildered Tundra Bush Rat.
However: while I absolutely agree with you that the section is very clear, it is by no means clear to me either that
That portion of the US Code is or is not in violation of the US Constitution,
"...the President has found...the (class of) aliens...detrimental to the interest of the United States". No, all he has shown is that, apparently "It's obvious!", or some such other natterings. He hasn't found anything. The incoherent and juvenile mashup his staff sent out after the ukase edict EO is palpable proof. The hysteria that you mention has been apparent within his bloviations.
Gee - I'm going to guess you'll disagree?
Luckily the 9th doesn't make safety equipment laws. It would require you to install the airbags after you have crashed.
Yes, it says that.... but the courts have not interpreted that authority to be unilateral and without bounds in past cases. The judge issued a "temporary" restraining order to freeze in place the immigration and border process that had been in place for years under Obama before Trump suddenly became president and issued this executive order that was secretively written and poorly promulgated.
There has been no evidence introduced that Trump issued his executive order because of a sudden national emergency based on new information. Therefore, given the severe and broad impact of the executive order and the apparently serious legal questions about it (several judges around the country have intervened in various ways) this judge decided to put it on ice for a few weeks while he sorted through the details and held additional hearing and had opportunity for additional briefings.
This is not at all unusual. This judge, appointed many years ago by George W Bush, is not a wacky radlib pinko. He is well within the judicial mainstream. The only thing actually unusual is that the TRO had a national effect rather than a local one within the federal court district but the judge explained that this was due to existing immigration law placing a high priority on nationally uniform enforcement along all borders.