Life with Trump keeps getter better "Judges"

[Mark49]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-announce-federal-court-nominees-134236728--politics.html

[101st Airborne]

Awesomeness.

[Wordupmybrotha]

"Trump said last month that he is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals court that covers Western states and which has long been a target of Republicans. It would take congressional action to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit, and Republicans introduced bills this year to do just that."

[BigBronco]

" Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. "The president should work with members of both parties to pick judges from within the judicial mainstream, who will interpret the law rather than make it."


I am so very sick of liberal interpretations of "THE LAW". Interpretations are only needed when breaking the law.

[baranski]

"Trump said last month that he is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals court that covers Western states and which has long been a target of Republicans. It would take congressional action to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit, and Republicans introduced bills this year to do just that."

X2

[highpower]

Chuck Schumer can suck a big bag of weenies. What he means is, "we want you to appoint judges that will make up liberal interpretations of the law".

[the_tunaman]

^^^THIS^^^ Screw Chuckie and the rest of the libtards - you go POTUS and stack the deck as much as possible.

Also good that he has had an encounter or two with the 9th circus, as they are now in his sights and I'm hoping he does actually take action. Impeach the worst offenders, break it up, and appoint some legitimate judges who will be fair and impartial (what a novel concept!).

[IVC]

Unfortunately, "fair and impartial" judges won't do it if the other side is appointing political activists. Courts have been politicized to the point of no return.

For example, the district judge in San Francisco who granted preliminary injunction in Trump's sanctuary city executive order was a bundler for Obama (collected, I believe, over 200K in donations) who got appointed both as a reward for political activism and as a means to stack up the court.

The only way to counter the other side is to have political appointees of our own who can return the favor with injunctions on, e.g., any potential national AWB in the future.

It's the same as with the nuclear option in the senate for Gorsuch's nomination. Once Reid introduced it, there is no going back since we can only lose if playing by the traditional norms that were just broken.

[the_tunaman]

If Reid hadn't done so, the Dems would have the first chance they had, once they get back in power.

Like I said... Stack the deck President Trump!

[five.five-six]

"Trump said last month that he is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit, a federal appeals court that covers Western states and which has long been a target of Republicans. It would take congressional action to break up the 9th U.S. Circuit, and Republicans introduced bills this year to do just that."

The 9th is overturned 80% of the time it's appeals make it to SCOTUS. Obviously the 9th is broken.

[325inthe510]

The 9th is overturned 80% of the time it's appeals make it to SCOTUS. Obviously the 9th is broken.

Using that logic most district courts are broken. Only the most challenging decisions make it to the SCOTUS, it's not really hard to see why cases that make it there get overturned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IVC]

Using that logic most district courts are broken. Only the most challenging decisions make it to the SCOTUS, it's not really hard to see why cases that make it there get overturned.

Let's say that it has much less to do with with "really hard cases" and much more with the differing political leanings of the CA-9 and SCOTUS.

If Clinton had won and appointed Scalia's replacement, CA-9 would have suddenly looked like a mainstream court with most of the decisions upheld. Otherwise it's true that "overturn rate" is not a good KPI for evaluating courts.

[numpty]

Unfortunately, "fair and impartial" judges won't do it if the other side is appointing political activists. Courts have been politicized to the point of no return.

For example, the district judge in San Francisco who granted preliminary injunction in Trump's sanctuary city executive order was a bundler for Obama (collected, I believe, over 200K in donations) who got appointed both as a reward for political activism and as a means to stack up the court.

The only way to counter the other side is to have political appointees of our own who can return the favor with injunctions on, e.g., any potential national AWB in the future.

It's the same as with the nuclear option in the senate for Gorsuch's nomination. Once Reid introduced it, there is no going back since we can only lose if playing by the traditional norms that were just broken.

Well said.

[Wordupmybrotha]

All good points made below. Due to the fast pace nature of the forum, not all our arguments can be hashed out in detail, but thoughtful points below. Here's a link to Snopes talking about it.

http://www.snopes.com/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

The 9th is overturned 80% of the time it's appeals make it to SCOTUS. Obviously the 9th is broken.

Yes. They're the second most overturned after the Federal circuit.



And not just the overturned rate, but their workload is too much and creates huge backlog. Need to break it up just on workload alone.

Using that logic most district courts are broken. Only the most challenging decisions make it to the SCOTUS, it's not really hard to see why cases that make it there get overturned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point. However, the 9th circuit has higher than median reversal rate and lower affirmation rate.

"Figure 3 compares affirmance rates to reversal rates for each court. The Supreme Court affirmed over 40% of all cases granted certiorari from the First, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits. In fact, the median affirmance rate is about 31.71%, with only two courts falling below 25%, again, the Ninth and Federal Circuits. If the Supreme Court granted certiorari only to review cases that it intends to reverse or vacate, the affirmance rates should be significantly lower. These statistics indicate that the Court is more likely interested in taking cases to resolve circuit splits, to resolve uncertainty in the law, or to determine important legal or constitutional issues."

Let's say that it has much less to do with with "really hard cases" and much more with the differing political leanings of the CA-9 and SCOTUS.

If Clinton had won and appointed Scalia's replacement, CA-9 would have suddenly looked like a mainstream court with most of the decisions upheld. Otherwise it's true that "overturn rate" is not a good KPI for evaluating courts.

Yes, if the standards change, results change.

[FalconLair]

" Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said in a statement. "The president should work with members of both parties to pick judges from within the judicial mainstream, who will interpret the law rather than make it."

funny, i don't recall Obama working with members of the Republican Party when he was nominating judges

Trump has his list, he's checking it twice - like Santa Claus