You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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?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?
The 9th Circuit demonstrates a failure in the checks and balances every time they legislate from the bench.
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.
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.The Ninth Court is the most overturned Federal Court in history. They seldom follow the law.
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.
More here:
How 'liberal' reputation of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is overblown, scholars say
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.They also have the highest percentage, not just the highest number.
They also have the highest percentage, not just the highest number. Even the American Bar Assoc thinks they are screwy.
When the subject of Supreme Court reversal rates arises, two common perceptions usually come to mind. First, the Ninth Circuit is the “rogue circuit.” Second, the Supreme Court only takes cases that it intends to reverse. An empirical study of Supreme Court dispositions of cases from the courts of appeals during the last 10 Terms1 reveals that neither of these common perceptions is true.
You mean they SHOULDN'T legislate from the bench. On that I agree.
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:Constitution's checks and balances
Williams v. Johnson, 824 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2016 (reversed)
The state court of appeal held that the trial court judge correctly ruled by excusing a single juror who explicitly said he would not follow the law. A perfectly correct decision but not in the 9th Circuit who reversed the state court on habeas corpus. Naturally, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit for not following Supreme Court precedent and ignoring AEDPA. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the 9th Circuit (again) who upheld the California court this time. Yet even one of the judges (as a usual dissent by Judge .Reinhardt) still dissented..
What is the trial court supposed to do when a juror refuses to follow the law? Eleven jurors had found the defendant guilty, and the dissent wants to retry the case because one juror held out for refusing to follow the law.
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.
Now, I'm no attorney; just a poor bewildered Tundra Bush Rat.... This section is VERY clear: View attachment 213857
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
or that
- That portion of the US Code is or is not in violation of the US Constitution,
Gee - I'm going to guess you'll disagree?
- "...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
ukaseedictEO is palpable proof. The hysteria that you mention has been apparent within his bloviations.
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.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: