9th Circuit Court of Appeals watch (judges & composition of CA9, not cases)

[socal m1 shooter]

A whiny article in the LA Times today is moaning about how Trump has assaulted the 9th circuit. The headline says he "flipped" it, which is not quite accurate yet in my opinion, but it does go into the role of senior judges, and how we now do have a majority of Republican senior judges, who sit on merits panels.
[...]

I read that article as well, and thought the money quote was this one:

The biggest change will come in controversial cases that test the constitutionality of laws and the legal ability of presidents to establish contentious new rules. The 9th Circuit is weighing challenges to Trump on a wide array of issues, from immigration to reproductive rights, and the rightward tilt is likely to make it easier for the president to prevail.
[...]

Especially after a few more years and a few more appointments.

I think the hand-wringing on the part of the LA Dog Trainer is partly to sell newspapers, partly to help bolus the waning Trump Derangement Syndrome, and partly to help gin up the leftist base and get the vote out. I seldom read the paper, and when I do, try to take a little and leave a lot. But I will cop to enjoying a bit of schadenfreude at the expense of the left after reading this piece. The 9th Circuit has so consistently been a fount of injustice and an effective tool of leftists to get things they can't quite get through the ballot box that the prospect of all that changing, and in a positive way, is encouraging.

This is great news. Imagine what we can do with another 4 years. Truly save and preserve the Republic.

A step in the right direction, pun intended, but I question whether it will really do much to extricate us from our orbit around the toilet bowl. Our problems could be worse, but they have also been growing for fifty years or more. Our system, where someone is in office for two, four, or six years, is not really well-suited to solving problems which took twenty or thirty years to reach critical mass. For example, folks rightly squawk about the national debt, but the fiscal gap, which includes the national debt, the Social Security funding shortfall, and the Medicare funding shortfall, is larger by a factor of ten. I don't think that is solvable in any favorable way.

[CCWFacts]

It is a real possibility he gets 15-20% with black male voters this time.

Roger on that. I will literally eat my hat if any reputable exit poll shows him at 15% of the black vote nation-wide in the general election. I have a Nike baseball cap here ready to literally eat raw if that should happen.

Trump got 8% of the black vote in '16 so he would need to DOUBLE his support.

[USMCmatt]

It is a real possibility he gets 15-20% with black male voters this time.

This isn't the thread for it, but I will literally eat my hat if Trump gets 15% of the black vote.

Yes some very narrow Latino groups, namely "white Hispanics" (not GZ) like Cuba's and Venezuela's professional classes that arrived here, can vote Republican.

The masses that are crossing the border will not.

And yeah, just because someone is from a certain country determines how they vote.

To take an example: African Muslims (Somalis etc) vote over 98% Democratic. If the Republicans made spectacular progress with them and more than doubled their support level, they still would not get 5% of their vote. This is reality and the Republicans can keep on protesting that "we're a nation of ideas and values, not people" until they are flushed into irrelevance just like white voters in South Africa.

Look at this map of the presidential election, 2016, and tell me something else is more important than demographics:

[CCWFacts]

Cubans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Russians, and some others are GOP voters. Latino voters in Texas are split between parties unlike here in CA. I wouldn’t focus too much on demographics and assume that just because someone is from a certain country, they will vote Dem always. For example, the latest poll of African Americans shows close to 30% support for Trump which is a major shift. Experts think that if they GOP can get 15% of the black vote, the Dems won’t be able to win another election.

This isn't the thread for it, but I will literally eat my hat if Trump gets 15% of the black vote.

Yes some very narrow Latino groups, namely "white Hispanics" (not GZ) like Cuba's and Venezuela's professional classes that arrived here, can vote Republican.

The masses that are crossing the border will not.

And yeah, just because someone is from a certain country determines how they vote.

To take an example: African Muslims (Somalis etc) vote over 98% Democratic. If the Republicans made spectacular progress with them and more than doubled their support level, they still would not get 5% of their vote. This is reality and the Republicans can keep on protesting that "we're a nation of ideas and values, not people" until they are flushed into irrelevance just like white voters in South Africa.

Look at this map of the presidential election, 2016, and tell me something else is more important than demographics:

[Paladin]

A whiny article in the LA Times today is moaning about how Trump has assaulted the 9th circuit. The headline says he "flipped" it, which is not quite accurate yet in my opinion, but it does go into the role of senior judges, and how we now do have a majority of Republican senior judges, who sit on merits panels.

As I've said in this thread, given the random draw of en banc panels, which is unique to the 9th, even without an actual majority, the other side can see that appeals have an unacceptably high risk for them:

But even now Democratic appointees are likely to be more reluctant to ask for 11-judge panels to review conservative decisions because the larger en banc panels, chosen randomly, might be dominated by Republicans, judges said.

If the Peruta panel ruling happened today, would the 9th want to risk an en banc on that? I don't think so.

BTW research indicates that the "random" 3-judge panels are less random than they should be. But I'm guessing that doesn't apply so much to en bancs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoLoyg3JKRQ

[enegue]

Yes clearly. Of the 16 liberals on the 9th, several of them are 70+. It's almost certain that he will appoint one or two more in his next term.

But for all of you gloating about how Trump is going to secure our republic through the courts, keep in mind that demographic change will wipe away all of our protections. When Americans become a minority in a third world country, the constitution and courts will have no power or desire to help us. And anyway, the next time the Democrats have power, which is coming pretty soon due to demographic changes in Florida and Texas, they will pack the Supreme Court and the circuits if necessary.

The only thing that saves us is not the courts, but a wall and vigorous immigration enforcement. We're getting about 10% of what we really need from Trump on that.

Cubans, Venezuelans, Vietnamese, Russians, and some others are GOP voters. Latino voters in Texas are split between parties unlike here in CA. I wouldn’t focus too much on demographics and assume that just because someone is from a certain country, they will vote Dem always. For example, the latest poll of African Americans shows close to 30% support for Trump which is a major shift. Experts think that if they GOP can get 15% of the black vote, the Dems won’t be able to win another election.

[CCWFacts]

Trump. If he gets a 2nd term, I have no doubt that the 9th Circus will have a slight conservative majority;

Yes clearly. Of the 16 liberals on the 9th, several of them are 70+. It's almost certain that he will appoint one or two more in his next term.

But for all of you gloating about how Trump is going to secure our republic through the courts, keep in mind that demographic change will wipe away all of our protections. When Americans become a minority in a third world country, the constitution and courts will have no power or desire to help us. And anyway, the next time the Democrats have power, which is coming pretty soon due to demographic changes in Florida and Texas, they will pack the Supreme Court and the circuits if necessary.

The only thing that saves us is not the courts, but a wall and vigorous immigration enforcement. We're getting about 10% of what we really need from Trump on that.

[Go Navy]

There are 29 Judges plus one Chief Judge; then there are 19 Senior Judges who are semi-retired and hear a very limited number of (if any) cases per year to maintain their status.

Thus, there are "30 active seats," but only 29 "Judges" as such. When it comes to the 29 + 1...

• 9 appointed by Clinton
• 7 by Obama
• 4 by G.W. Bush
• 10 by Trump

As regards the 19 Senior Judges...

• 2 appointed by Nixon
• 4 by Carter
• 3 by Reagan
• 2 by G.H.W. Bush
• 5 by Clinton
• 3 by G.W. Bush

That gives Democrats 16 of the 30 'active' judges and 9 of the 'Senior' Judges; while Republicans have 14 of the 30 'active' judges and 10 of the 'Senior' Judges.

In that sense, what Trump has done with his 10 appointments is restore some semblance of 'balance' to the 9th Circuit. Though it has not tipped 'conservative,' it does, in theory, give 'conservatives' a fighting chance in the 9th.

Let's see now, if we count the number appointed by Repubs vs. number appointed by Dems, we get (Repub number first):

9th Circus: 14 to 16
Circus Seniors: 10 to 9.

So, regarding the active judges on the Circus, if we got one retiree and one new appointee, it becomes a tie. Two retirees and two new Trump appointees and it is a thin Repub majority.

That illustrates how close it is now, thanks to Pres. Trump. If he gets a 2nd term, I have no doubt that the 9th Circus will have a slight conservative majority; I also have no doubt Trump will get another SCOTUS nomination. That nominee will be subjected to a demonization that will make Kavanaugh look like a Brownie Scout picnic.

[Spaffo]

Turning the courts is our only viable longterm protection.

[USMCmatt]

This is great news. Imagine what we can do with another 4 years. Truly save and preserve the Republic.

[CCWFacts]

A whiny article in the LA Times today is moaning about how Trump has assaulted the 9th circuit. The headline says he "flipped" it, which is not quite accurate yet in my opinion, but it does go into the role of senior judges, and how we now do have a majority of Republican senior judges, who sit on merits panels.

As I've said in this thread, given the random draw of en banc panels, which is unique to the 9th, even without an actual majority, the other side can see that appeals have an unacceptably high risk for them:

But even now Democratic appointees are likely to be more reluctant to ask for 11-judge panels to review conservative decisions because the larger en banc panels, chosen randomly, might be dominated by Republicans, judges said.

If the Peruta panel ruling happened today, would the 9th want to risk an en banc on that? I don't think so.

BTW research indicates that the "random" 3-judge panels are less random than they should be. But I'm guessing that doesn't apply so much to en bancs.

[ironpegasus]

Not gonna happen.

Maybe not the party as a whole, but already you have enough RINOs that have flipped that they don't necessarily have the votes to acquit. Romney, Murkowsky, etc... doesn't take the whole party flipping on him to make this a problem. They already have enough backstabbers to prevent any clean resolution of the matter.

[Offwidth]

Depends on if the GOP back-stabs Trump on this whole impeachment BS.

Not gonna happen.

[miglo]

Let's just hipe we do not lose the Senate majority this Nov. That will definitely slow things down

Depends on if the GOP back-stabs Trump on this whole impeachment BS.

[rice_man]

Let's just hipe we do not lose the Senate majority this Nov. That will definitely slow things down