-
-
Are you cereal? Circuit courts are nothing but a laughing stock of incompetence when it comes to being over turned. The 9th Circus isn't even the worst.
From wiki:
From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79% of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.
Amazing that highly paid and bennied individuals that only do their jobs correctly 21% of the time are appointed for life.
Getting over turned is just business as usual. Yet the worthless asshats want respect for their incompetence.Comment
-
That stat is somewhat misleading. A better indicator would be how many cases scotus takes as a percentage of all cases in the 9th circuit and overturns them. Comparing numbers from the 9th and 1st circuits is apples to oranges as they are vastly different in terms of size and case load.Comment
-
SAME LINK ALREADY PROVIDED; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...rned_decisions KEEP READING!
Some argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits. This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases.[10][11]
However, a detailed study in 2018 reported by Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, looked at how often a federal circuit court was reversed for every thousand cases it terminated on the merits between 1994 and 2015.[12] The study found that the Ninth Circuit's decisions were reversed at a rate of 2.50 cases per thousand, which was by far the highest rate in the country, with the Sixth Circuit second as 1.73 cases per thousand.[13][12] Fitzgerald also noted that the 9th Circuit was unanimously reversed more than three times as often as the least reversed circuits and over 20% more often than the next closest circuit
Comment
-
I hope that you're both correct, and there's some evidence to date that you are.
Mr. Beck's written briefs were quite good, and persuasive. But his oral presentation was quite the opposite.
The real problem is that the appellate process is all about persuasion. If the panel isn't led to adopt your arguments, you lose. I hope that Mr. Beck's written product will be sufficient to persuade, but a well prepared litigator should present well on both fronts.If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.Comment
-
sigpic
Welcome to Kalifornia - A unconstitutional state where opinions trump over facts, "gun laws are too lax" & "you can't haves, unless it's taxed."Comment
-
Repetitive long discursion deleted.ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page
Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!Comment
-
Comment
-
-
Yes and no. In my experience, the panel already has its decision in mind before oral argument, and the judges use oral argument for two purposes: 1) to reinforce their previously formed opinions, and 2) to try to persuade other panel judges to that judge's opinion, generally by trying to poke holes in counsel's arguments. As has often been said, oral argument is a perfect opportunity for counsel to stick his foot in his mouth. Persuading a judge to change his or her mind during oral argument is a rarity.
On the other hand, even the best drafted arguments may not persuade, but only reinforce a judge's own opinion as to the "correct" result. The purpose of the appellate court is not to decide who writes best or argues best, but what is the "best" outcome from the individual judge's perspective. In some small fraction of cases, the outcome is a policy question where judges get to make the law to fit their judicial philosophy.
Young is an important case because the County does not issue permits to anyone other than security guards, and then only for open carry while in uniform. Although Peruta decided the concealed carry issue, it is notable the the County doesn't issue those permits to mere civilians either. Carrying a firearm is therefore a purely discretionary function of a police chief, i.e., a license but not a right.
Assuming that an anti-gun majority will necessarily attempt to find a way to reverse the panel decision, and having already ruled in binding precedent that concealed carry is not a right, the Court has to figure out how it can admit the existence of a right to carry as guaranteed by the 2A (and implicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in Heller) without offering a realistic opportunity for citizens to carry. The only way that it can do so is to apply "intermediate scrutiny" and rule that the right is subject to the police power of the State in the interest of public safety, notwithstanding "shall not be infringed." It will necessarily conclude that the mere possibility of obtaining a license (even if no licenses have been issued in decades) is enough to uphold the law as constitutional. It will be interesting to see the mental gymnastics and contortions needed to reach such a decision.Comment
Tweet
There are currently 17006 users online. 42 members and 16964 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 7:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment