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

[Noble Cause]

More at: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...ts-of-appeals/

From the article:


The 9th Circus got its nickname for a reason.

As long as the leftists can dominate the 9th, the 2A will be treated with
Contempt, despite being #2 on the Bill of Rights.

The possible outcome of:

22 R, 7 D

[Paladin]

How Future Vacancies Could Transform the Federal Courts of Appeals

Last month, I did a quick breakdown of the federal courts of appeals by party of appointing president (which is at best a very crude metric of judicial philosophy). Here I am going to take a harder look at how the composition of each court might change by the end of 2020.

In particular, I am going to identify which sitting judges are, or will soon be (i.e., by July 2020), eligible to take senior status or retire. I emphasize that in doing so I express no opinion whether any particular judge should take senior status or retire. I also offer no prediction on who might. As a general rule, judges appointed by Democratic presidents are much less likely than judges appointed by Republican presidents to step down.

I set forth in “Potential new” what the new composition of the court would be if all senior-eligible judges stepped down and were replaced by appointees of President Trump. That, of course, is a farfetched scenario. But it nonetheless might shed some light on the future, especially if President Trump wins a second term.

<snip>

Ninth Circuit

Now: 9 R, 16 D, 4 V

Nominations of Collins and Lee are pending on Senate floor; Bress in committee

Senior-eligible now: 4 R (Bea, Bybee, Callahan, M. Smith) and 8 D (Berzon, Fletcher, Gould, Graber, McKeown, Paez, Rawlinson, Thomas)

Senior-eligible soon: 1 R (Ikuta) and 1 D (Wardlaw)

Potential new: 22 R, 7 D

More at: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench...ts-of-appeals/

[Paladin]

Two nominees to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a target of President Trump's ire, cleared a major hurdle Thursday as they won approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The panel voted 12-10 along party lines to advance the nominations of Kenneth Lee and Daniel Collins, who were first chosen by Trump last year for seats on the 9th Circuit, considered to be the country’s most liberal appeals court.

The nominations will now head to the Senate floor for a vote.

<snip>

The 9th Circuit has heard numerous cases challenging Trump's policies, including the travel ban and the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and has ruled against the president. As a result, Trump often lashes out against the court, calling it "unfair" and a "disgrace."

But with the nominations of Lee and Collins, Trump has the chance to bring the 9th Circuit closer to parity. If the two are confirmed, 11 of the judges will be appointed by Republicans and 16 appointed by Democrats. Two more vacancies on the 9th Circuit remain, and Trump nominated Daniel Bress to fill one of those seats in February.

Trump has reshaped the federal judiciary since assuming the presidency, with the Senate confirming 37 of his nominees to the federal courts of appeals and two Supreme Court justices.

More at: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...rcuit-nominees

[Paladin]

The bolded is still not exactly right. Senior judges who were on the original panel are eligible for the en banc lottery. And the Chief Judge, who will be a Democratic appointee for at least the next 20+ years is already automatically a member of he en banc Court. So assuming Trump gets 4 more appointees confirmed, there would actually be somewhere between 15 of 30 (if there were two R-nominated Senior judges on the original, 3-judge panel) and 13 of 30 (2 D-nominated Senior judges) R-nominated judges in the pool to be selected for the 10 remaining slots. Of which we need to draw 6 2A-friendly judges.

Good point. Thanks!

[Harry Ono]

would make sense... the issue of dividing the 9th has been an issue for the past decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Ninth_Circuit

In March 2007, Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee that the consensus among the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States was that the Ninth Circuit was too large and unwieldy and should be split.

[Baja Daze]

We still have a long road to go in the 9th Circus....

We have 9 Klinton Judges; 7 Barry Judges; 5 G.W. Bush Judges and 3 Trump Judges, however one is Bennett in Hawaii and is considered an anti....

So that's a current margin of 17-7 with 5 current vacancies to hopefully be filled by Trump, however that still leaves us with the score at just 17-12.

Hopefully the septuagenarian libtard Judges start retiring...

Like I previously wrote, we still have a long road to go in regards to the 9th Circus, however we are making demonstrable progress...

[LVSox]

While things won't be as good as I thought, they won't be very bad. 13 out of 29 non-Senior judges is 45% of the judges who can serve on an en banc panel.

That helps to explain why CA9 granted an en banc appeal of Young and took the (unprecedented?) step of selecting the judges who will make up that panel a year to a year and a half before it will convene (stayed pending SCOTUS NYSRPA decision). Chief Judge Thomas wanted to select the panel before "Trump judges" could tilt CA9's non-Senior judge composition and perhaps determine whether we win or lose Young.

The bolded is still not exactly right. Senior judges who were on the original panel are eligible for the en banc lottery. And the Chief Judge, who will be a Democratic appointee for at least the next 20+ years is already automatically a member of he en banc Court. So assuming Trump gets 4 more appointees confirmed, there would actually be somewhere between 15 of 30 (if there were two R-nominated Senior judges on the original, 3-judge panel) and 13 of 30 (2 D-nominated Senior judges) R-nominated judges in the pool to be selected for the 10 remaining slots. Of which we need to draw 6 2A-friendly judges.

[Paladin]

While things won't be as good as I thought, they won't be very bad. 13 out of 29 non-Senior judges is 45% of the judges who can serve on an en banc panel.

That helps to explain why CA9 granted an en banc appeal of Young and took the (unprecedented?) step of selecting the judges who will make up that panel a year to a year and a half before it will convene (stayed pending SCOTUS NYSRPA decision). Chief Judge Thomas wanted to select the panel before "Trump judges" could tilt CA9's non-Senior judge composition and perhaps determine whether we win or lose Young.

[CCWFacts]

Now, think of what would have happened (and happened to our 2nd A RKBA) if Hillary had won. That's just in re. to the judiciary of CA9. Then add in her 2 SCOTUS picks (I'm sure Kennedy wouldn't have minded retiring in her first term.) Last, add in anti legislation and Executive Orders she would have pushed after the mass shootings over the past 2 years (LV, TX, FL, etc).

Absolutely. Plus she absolutely would have created at least 30 million new US citizens. All illegal aliens (estimates range from 10mil to 20mil) would be made permanent resident, on track to citizenship, and she would have insisted on handing out 2mil or more greencards per year to anyone who isn't white. Her Supreme Court would also find that non-resident aliens (ie, everyone in the world who isn't here) have standing to sue for visas, which would mean we can't deny anyone a visa, and would result in the biggest land rush ever in human history. With 30 million new citizens and millions more arriving every year, all of them overwhelmingly Democratic, this country would lose any resemblance to a first world western nation.

If you believe in God, and even if you don't, you should give a prayer of thanks that Trump won and pray he wins again.

Amen

[Paladin]

No. Collins and Lee would be #10 and #11. Bress would be 12, and O’Scannlain’s seat would be #13.

There are 16 judges on the 9th appointed by Obama and Clinton. There will be no majority until some of those judges take senior status, retire, die, are removed, or the size of the court is increased.

Ah, right you are! In my excitement missed the part in the FOX story that said, "The Washington Post noted that once all of Trump's current nominees to the bench are confirmed as expected" that gives us 12 out of 29 (40%).



Sorry, guys.

[seabee1]

Oh, and I would like to see President Trump Nominate This Guy
to the 9th

The 9th now, SCOTUS when they finally admit that Ruth died.

[LVSox]

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fei...consulting-her

When Collins and Lee are on the 9th, they'll be 13 and 14 out of 29. When Bress is on, that will be 15 out of 29. When O'Scannlain's open seat is filled by Trump, that will be 16 out of 29 -- 55%!!! By electing Trump, we will have turned CA9 from a solidly Leftist/liberal circuit to a majority conservative/constitutionalist one!

[Paladin]

When Collins and Lee are on the 9th, they'll be 13 and 14 out of 29. When Bress is on, that will be 15 out of 29. When O'Scannlain's open seat is filled by Trump, that will be 16 out of 29 -- 55%!!! By electing Trump, we will have turned CA9 from a solidly Leftist/liberal circuit to a majority conservative/constitutionalist one!

I should clarify one thing: Senior judges still participate in 3-judge panels, so my numbers above do NOT mean we'll achieve a majority of all CA9 judges, only the ones who can participate in en banc and full court en banc panels. Since en banc panels are normally rate, this is a relatively unimportant win. But given that CA9 seems to regularly take 3-judge panel 2nd A wins en banc (Nordyke, Peruta, Young), this is still important for us and our 2nd A RKBA in the 9 states of CA9. (IIRC, CA9 has never done a full court en banc.)

[Noble Cause]

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fei...consulting-her

When Collins and Lee are on the 9th, they'll be 13 and 14 out of 29. When Bress is on, that will be 15 out of 29. When O'Scannlain's open seat is filled by Trump, that will be 16 out of 29 -- 55%!!! By electing Trump, we will have turned CA9 from a solidly Leftist/liberal circuit to a majority conservative/constitutionalist one!



Now, think of what would have happened (and happened to our 2nd A RKBA) if Hillary had won. That's just in re. to the judiciary of CA9. Then add in her 2 SCOTUS picks (I'm sure Kennedy wouldn't have minded retiring in her first term.) Last, add in anti legislation and Executive Orders she would have pushed after the mass shootings over the past 2 years (LV, TX, FL, etc).

If you believe in God, and even if you don't, you should give a prayer of thanks that Trump won and pray he wins again.

This is Exactly why the Never Trumpers Republicans are just being Idiots
at this point in time, either that or they are simply Anti-2A Democrats
pretending to be Republicans.

Same for the Anti-NRA Haters, who seem unable or unwilling to see the
Big Picture in getting back our 2A Rights..

Oh, and I would like to see President Trump Nominate This Guy
to the 9th :


Roger T. Benitez

[Paladin]

The Senate is poised this week to consider two more conservative nominees selected by President Trump to sit on the left-leaning 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- and the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee isn't happy about it.

That's because the nominees, Ken Lee and Dan Collins, were picked without any input from either Dianne Feinstein or Kamala Harris, California's two Democrat senators. Traditionally, the White House seeks to obtain a so-called "blue slip," or approval, from a judicial nominee's two home-state senators before pressing on with their nominations.

But the Trump administration, which has successfully nominated several conservative judges to the 9th Circuit already, has pointedly disregarded that process as it continues its push to transform the appellate court that the president repeatedly has derided as hopelessly biased and "disgraceful."

"I take it that without notice or discussion, the blue slip is essentially dead," Feinstein, the ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in televised remarks on Thursday.

<snip>

Among those nominees was Seattle attorney Eric Miller, who was confirmed to the 9th Circuit in February by a vote of 53-46. Progressives fiercely attacked Miller as a corporate lawyer and Federalist Society member whose career supposedly had been hostile to Native American rights.

<snip>

Following Miller's confirmation month, in an analysis titled "Thanks to Trump, the liberal 9th Circuit is no longer liberal," The Washington Post noted that once all of Trump's current nominees to the bench are confirmed as expected, there will be 12 Republican-appointed judges on the 9th Circuit, which consists of 29 full-time judges.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fei...consulting-her

When Collins and Lee are on the 9th, they'll be 13 and 14 out of 29. When Bress is on, that will be 15 out of 29. When O'Scannlain's open seat is filled by Trump, that will be 16 out of 29 -- 55%!!! By electing Trump, we will have turned CA9 from a solidly Leftist/liberal circuit to a majority conservative/constitutionalist one!



Now, think of what would have happened (and happened to our 2nd A RKBA) if Hillary had won. That's just in re. to the judiciary of CA9. Then add in her 2 SCOTUS picks (I'm sure Kennedy wouldn't have minded retiring in her first term.) Last, add in anti legislation and Executive Orders she would have pushed after the mass shootings over the past 2 years (LV, TX, FL, etc).

If you believe in God, and even if you don't, you should give a prayer of thanks that Trump won and pray he wins again.