Ninth Circus Court of Appeals
No, that’s not a typo, that’s a well-earned nickname. After reading Ex-OS2’s post, I got to wondering who these clowns were, and how many rings they had. I found some items of interest, and thought I’d share. First, it’s area of responsibility is huge, encompassing Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington State, and the Territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. It’s the largest of the 13 Courts of Appeals, with 29 active judges. Being so large makes for some unusual circumstances concerning the composition of an en banc court, where normally all active judges are seated. It’s “impractical” for all 29 judges to hear and deliberate on individual arguments, so a limited en banc review is held, consisting of 11 randomly selected judges. This is not an ideal situation, and can cause conflicts of law when the en banc panels deliver contradictory opinions.
Which brings up the claim that the Ninth’s findings are the most overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The real answer is, that depends. In my admittedly brief research on the matter, I’ll paraphrase Mark Twain’s definition of a gold mine as a hole in the ground with a liar standing next to it, as an article with statistics is an agenda with a journalist standing next to it. The reality is SCOTUS can cherry pick its calendar, and overturns around 70% of the cases it hears. And I most certainly am not a journalist.
So, who makes up the court? I’ll not go into specifics, but the preponderance of judges were appointed by Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama. The three in question who found against Trump are Judges William C. Canby, Richard R. Clifton, and Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by Presidents Carter, G.W. Bush, and Obama, respectively.
Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) claims he’s planning to introduce legislation soon to break up the Ninth, and create a new Circuit Court composed of Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Alaska to relieve an “oversized and overworked” Ninth Circuit. With the Republicans holding both houses and Trump in the White House, this could get very interesting.
Category: Politics
More like the Ninth Circus Court of SCHLEMIELS, what a circus of schmendricks!
The Nutty Ninth are unscrupulous to say the least.
Judicial activists….sold their souls for political ideology at the expense of the constitution and We The People
It would be nice to see Sen Flake’s bill go through and pare down the area that the “Nutty Ninth” covers.
Sen. Flake’s bill doesn’t go far enough. The 9th should be pared down to encompass the states of California and Hawaii. Put the other states into a circuit of sanity.
Except the most liberal judge on the 9th is the Chief Judge and he is from Bozeman, Montana.
The Ninth Circuit has a proud tradition of making shit up and calling it law.
There are a few very good judges on the Ninth Circuit. Alex Kozinski, Diarmiud O’Scannlian, and Consuelo Callahan plus a few more. Maybe seven or eight in all. They are outnumbered by the mouth-foaming leftards. When happenstance puts together a panel that supports RKBA for example, as the 3-1 panel in *Peruta* did, a libtard judge calls for “en banc” review, and gets it overturned 7-4.
I had the pleasure to work in Connie Callahan’s court in her Superior Court days. She is wicked smart and does not suffer fools. As an aside, she is very easy on the eyes also.
Regarding the 9th Circus of Clown’s ruling on Trump’s EO is interesting in light of a decision the previous week regarding Arizona and drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
In that ruling, the clowns said that the president has broad immigration powers and an EO is the same as a law passed by Congress. Therefore, due to DACA, Arizona must issue licenses to illegals.
Both decisions need to be tossed by the Supremes and Gorush needs to be confirmed ASAP.
It looks like a (presumably) conservative judge on the Ninth has called for “en banc” regarding the Trump EO TRO decision. Even if the court votes not to go “en banc”, the judges voting for it can write blistering dissents which can be cited to SCOTUS should it get there.
I would love for my State to get away from them.
Well, at least they are consistent … consistently to the left and wrong.
There is no “cherry picking” going on. SCOTUS hear’s cases it thinks warrant a review and the fact is the 9th has 80% of it’s cases overturned. That indicates monumentally bad decisions on their part. That SCOTUS feels the need to intervene so often speaks volumes.
The finding by the Ninth circuit confirms they have little to no regard for the Constitution, the safety of the Citizens of the US or our National Security.
Breaking up the Circuit does nothing to relieve the failures of the Judges who presently serve.
Congress has the ability to replace Judges who have shown partisanship in their consistent unconstitutional rulings.
When will Congress take their responsibilities seriously and act?
Maybe now, but there’s still too many nutless RINO incumbents.
For the record and in the interest of accuracy I’ve seen a lot of numbers bandied about regarding the 9th…how 80% of cases are overturned…as with all statistics that’s not entirely accurate….
The stats come from a study which revealed that of the cases the SCOTUS heard 83% of those from the 9th were either vacated or reversed. What the stats don’t tell you is the SCOTUS has heard less than a half percent of the total 9th circuit cases meaning 99.5% of the 9th’s rulings aren’t even reviewed and stand as decided.
SCOTUS hears cases that it believes make good precedent, that is all. They don’t hear 99% of the cases their subordinate circuits hear…
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Thought folks might like an accurate representation of what the numbers mean in my not so fucking humble opinion.
Have to ask – what percentage of the other circuits’ decisions get SCOTUS review? Half a point is not much… unless for all the other courts the equivalent percentage is .005% or whatever. One stat without the other is as meaningless as that 8% is.
In the ten year study period at the American Bar association site there were a total of 600,000 cases heard by all circuit courts SCOTUS looked at 660 of those during that same ten years….so one can quickly see the rates aren’t all that impressive when you realize that we are talking about very few cases and mostly cases that make a precedent style decision…which is a tiny fraction of cases…
You can read the study I read, which is old now to be sure, at this link…I just haven’t looked for a more recent study mostly because it’s not a whole lot different these days when one skims the raw data. I just haven’t seen that data tabulated.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
I must not be interpreting the math correctly… if out of 600,000 cases the Supremes looked at 660, they review about 1.1% of cases total. If only .5% of 9th Circuit’s cases get reversed, that would mean they only get reversed every few years (considering theirs are probably a minority of the 66 or so that get picked annually since there are many other circuits?) – is that right?
Hi David, 1% of 600,000 is 6000 consequently 660 is slightly over .1%
They hear more of the 9th’s cases for obvious reasons and the 9th is very busy with 114,000 or so of those 600,000 cases…
I was rounding up to a half percent for expediency’s sake…to sort of point out that the vast majority of the 9th’s cases aren’t even heard by the SCOTUS and stand as issued.
That’s all.
but of that small percentage of cases heard 83% were reversed or vacated….which means whatever people want it to mean.
It could mean the 9th has a fraction of cases where it applies no legal standing in an appropriate fashion or it could also mean the SCOTUS wants to make a precedent out of a particularly interesting or important piece of case law.
damn decimal places…. screwed me up with slide rules too. (And if that doesn’t date me…)
Essentially the report says not many cases get reviewed, and other than patent law cases from a patent-law-specific court, Ninth makes the highest total number of decisions (so I guess logically one would expect on a total number of cases they should have the most reversals.) However, the telling stat is that on a percentage basis they still lead the other circuits in what % of thise cases get adverse SCOTUS review.
Oh, and if you look at the stats on page 4 and the graphs on page 5, Lars’ assessment below about the 6th and 11th circuts looks to be pretty much bullshit. I’m shocked…SHOCKED.
The court did its job in stopping the ban. Trump gets to try again with a less ham-fisted, poorly executed, unconstitutional, and idiotic ban.
The 9th is not the most overturned court. The 6th and 11th both have higher rates of overturned cases.
The fact that SCOTUS gets to pick and choose is not an explanation for why the 9th is not the most overturned. The fact that SCOTUS picks its cases is why it has such a high rate of overturning cases; it chooses cases that it thinks there likely a good reason to hear arguments concerning the need to overturn the previous rulings. If it did not see anything questionable about the previous rulings it would not hear the case. So if SCOTUS was less selective the 9th would have a lower rate of overturned cases than it currently does because SCOTUS would expand hearing into cases it felt it was far less likely to overturn than it currently hears.
And the current era SCOTUS is a CONSERVATIVE court (with Scalia previously and now likely Gorsuch).
The hate for the 9th is misplaced. the courts are LITERALLY the only branch of government that is entrusted with defending constitutional rights.
Both the executive and congress, as well as state and local governments, tend to relentlessly assault people’s rights.
Though the blog post above is not guilty of this; I find it alarming and downright hypocritical that so many conservative “patriots” want to weaken the power of the courts. If you want to weaken the courts you want to undermine the bill of rights by shifting power away from courts to branches that primarily assault the bill of rights.
We literally have an emerging fascist trend in government. This is not the time to be attacking our judicial branch.
It is a disgrace to see “patriots” celebrate some shitbag political hack trying to abuse the power of congress and motivated ENTIRELY by right wing political partisanship.
Bullsh!t. The 9th Circus judges – as they often do – ignored existing law and attempted to make policy.
Federal law gives the POTUS the power to do exactly what he did in this case. See 8 USC 1182(f).
The 7 nations covered by the order in question do not cooperate with the US in suppressing international terrorism. Accordingly, their citizens form a valid, defined class: persons from nations who refuse to cooperate with the US in suppressing terrorism.
For once, take off the ideological blinders and do your f**king homework, tool.
This is NOT merely about the 7 nations. It is about the already vetted and approved green card, Visa, and resident aliens that were idiotically by this idiotic order and its hamfisted implementation. Many had been living and working in the US for decades.
These people have constitutional rights whether you want them to or not.
And those rights were violated. Something the president DOES NOT have the power to do.
If Trump merely ordered Dept of State and Immigration services to NO LONGER PROCESS NEW APPLICANTS from these countries he would have been within his executive authority and his order would likely be allowed to stand while it worked it way through the courts.
BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT HE FUCKING DID.
And it bullshit hypocrisy to target these countries and not other nations that have been feeder nations for US domestic terrorism.
It is also bullshit to claim that this needed to be done urgently when the biggest threat is the expedited visa process afforded to EU citizens because THE VAST MAJORITY OF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN WESTERN NATIONS ARE DONE BY CITIZENS OF WESTERN NATIONS.
Have you even bothered to glance at the ExOrd in question, Poodle – much less read it in detail? Or the applicable Federal law?
My guess would be no.
Where was LARS and his new butt buddy PrinciplesOverParty when the JEF enacted his EO on this issue that was MUCH HARSHER than Trump’s?
I’m guessing that open boarders are more important than national security to both ass clowns…
Commissar is 100% correct. Reading his comments was a breath of fresh air.
It’s really disheartening to see so many people who claimed to care so deeply about the Constitution and our country’s values turn on a dime to reflexively support this oppressive, un-American EO. Is some people’s hatred of Middle Easterners so blinding?
Since when does the Constitution protect people who are not Americans from the US government? But, hey, you feel better about yourself don’t you?
Weird how you leftist regressives did not care about this prior to 10 days ago.
At this rate you might discover that drone warfare is not just problematic, but downright wrong and unlawful.
why did that reply to Jonn instead of Poop?
Commissar, please read and digest.
Numerous times President Obama has instated a law similar or more stringent than the current immigration restrictions.
2011 – https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations
2012 – https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigrants-
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/executive-order-blocking-property-and-suspending-entry-united-states-cer
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/fse_eo.pdf
2014 – https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/04/10/pd07apr14.pdf
Whats good for the goose is not always good for the gander, right?
Cheers,
MrFace
SCOTUS would likely overturn this as well should the administration choose to take it there as it addresses executive powers as enumerated in US Code.
It doesn’t say in the US Code that just because Washington and California like to take in foreign students that the president’s power is limited in restricting access from foreign lands.
This is a perfect case for SCOTUS to determine the law as intended by Congress and not by the 9th circuit judges or the 6th or the 11th or any sympathetic jurist.
“Fascist trend in government”… governing by EO… let’s see if I remember who did that for most of his eight years in office… some guy from Chicago. Oh, yes, I remember the JEF did that, especially after the Donks lost both the House and Senate.
LARS, most of us are fed up with the belief that some judges are able to legislate from the bench because the people are not smart enough to do what’s best for us… kind of like you coming here and ranting and raving that we’re stupid and ignorant and that you have been anointed to show us the way.
Now, go back to work prepping for the next time Milo shows up at Bezerkley.
You would think that eventually karma would step in and more of these whack-a-doodles would fall down the stairs going to the basement of mommy’s house! Oh well.
Just look at them like I do, they aren’t worth a sh!t for working, but they are fun to watch
“The court did its job in stopping the ban.”
That is really all one needs to read from our resident commie. Nothing that follows matters because the first sentence is inaccurate.
No, the court did not stop the ban. That hearing has not yet occurred. What the 9th circus did was uphold a stay.
That is all.