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

[Go Navy]

Thanks to the Kentucky Fox, Mitch McConnell, for another smart chess move. He has been trashed by a lot of conservatives, but all the while he's maneuvering with a Senate that he really doesn't control. I think he has been unfairly criticized by some on the right. Disclosure: I'm a Goldwater/Reagan conservative.

Raise a glass of that fine Kentucky bourbon, Sen. McConnell, for a job well done.

[ajb78]

Still lots to fill in the 9th circus

https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_db.php?pk_id=0000000899

Updated September 6, 2018

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships. There are 7 current vacancies. The duration of the current vacancies ranges from 1,000 days to 26 days. The president has made 3 nominations.

Ninth Circuit district courts are authorized 112 judgeships. There are currently 19 vacancies with 2 future vacancies announced. The duration of the current vacancies ranges from 1,497 to 37 days. The president has made 3 nominations. The president has announced his “intent to nominate” candidates for two judicial vacancies in the Western District of Washington, but official nomination papers have not been submitted.

All of the current vacancies on the court of appeals and 13 of the 19 district court vacancies are considered judicial emergencies based on criteria established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

[not-fishing]

So the 9th has 29 judges according to wiki.

I wonder if Trump will be able to appoint say 15 or those.......

[Noble Cause]

Trump got a 9th circuit judge approved today. Ryan Nelson.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/411050-senate-leaders-strike-deal-on-15-judicial-nominees-setting-up-early-recess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_D._Nelson

Nomination of Ryan Nelson to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit Questions for the Record
July 18, 2018
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nelson%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf

4. In Justice Stevens’s dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller he wrote: “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”

a. Do you agree with Justice Stevens? Why or why not?
The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is binding precedent, and I would fully and faithfully follow it if fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Ninth Circuit. As a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate to offer any personal view on any Supreme Court opinion, including any dissenting opinion of a particular Justice.

b. Did Heller leave room for common-sense gun regulation?
In Heller, the Court explained that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and, although “not undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in [the Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008).

c. Did Heller, in finding an individual right to bear arms, depart from decades of Supreme Court precedent?
The majority and dissenting opinions in Heller discussed and debated the scope and applicability of the Supreme Court’s prior decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, including United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 621-25 (majority opinion’s discussion of Miller), with id. at 676-79 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (principal dissenting opinion’s discussion of Miller). Beyond observing this aspect of the opinions in Heller, please see my response above to question 4(a)

======= End of Transcripts =========


I only did a cursory check, there could be more regarding 2A.

Another possible indicator, admittedly small, is he attended
Brigham Young University, and Utah tends to be Pro Gun.


Noble

[thorium]

Trump got a 9th circuit judge approved today. Ryan Nelson.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/411050-senate-leaders-strike-deal-on-15-judicial-nominees-setting-up-early-recess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_D._Nelson

[Go Navy]

Article in the LA times today.

last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," Feinstein said in a statement.

That's right Senator Feinstein. For so many years, compromises has always meant, Democrats get some of what they want, Republicans get none of what they want. Now finally Republicans are figuring out, we need to take what we want.

This is really great news for us, especially with all these cases we have just entering the en banc cycle.

Translation: "controversial candidates" means conservative candidates. The 9th Circus is the most far left Federal Appellate court in the nation by all accounts, so we need to salt it with some conservative judges to balance things out.

[CCWFacts]

Article in the LA times today.

last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," Feinstein said in a statement.

That's right Senator Feinstein. For so many years, compromises has always meant, Democrats get some of what they want, Republicans get none of what they want. Now finally Republicans are figuring out, we need to take what we want.

This is really great news for us, especially with all these cases we have just entering the en banc cycle.

[Go Navy]

Democrats are trying to stall all the nominees until after the November election. They are counting on re-taking the Senate and therefore blocking all Trump's nominees.

Remember, the current Senate is in office until Jan. 2. Mitch McConnell is marching through these nominees and won't be stopped until then; the way some of the Senate races look right now, the Repubs may retain a majority.

[Blade Gunner]

Since we already have a "SCOTUS watch" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post21060351), I thought I'd start one for CA9 since most RKBA cases don't make it to SCOTUS. (Yeah, understatement of the year...) Just post any news/rumors in the press re. appointments/retirements/public statements (re. the 2nd A RKBA), by nominees or judges for CA9 with a link.

From: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/

ETA: Status of vacancies and nominees for CA9 as of 2018 Aug 27:

In chronological order of nominations:

1) Ryan D. Nelson (ID): nominated 2018 May 15; should be confirmed late 2018

2) Eric D. Miller (WA): nominated 2018 July 19

3) Bridget Shelton Bade (AZ): nominated 2018 Aug 27

Plus, we have one OR and three CA openings awaiting nominees.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ng_nominations

For those of us behind enemy lines, pro 2A appointments to the 9th circus appeals court is the quickest way to get out from under this oppressive state government. I mentioned this in the SCOTUS watch post at the beginning of Trump’s Presidency and was meet with much skepticism. Defeating these anti 2A laws at the 9th saves time, money, and uncertainty that SCOTUS will even cert an appeal.

[Cincinnatus]

Yes, I thought of that too but it won't work like that. There also isn't a big pool of qualified judges ready to change residence for a chance of being confirmed to something. It won't work unfortunately.

Has it been tried? If it hasn't been tried, then give it a shot. What have we got to lose, besides our freedoms?

[CCWFacts]

I thought that until recently Schumer was using procedural tactics on each nominee to take the maximum time. Something has changed and the dems are not happy with Schumer.

Thanks for explanation, reading it. It will truly change things for us here in the 9th. We will have CCW in the near future if Trump can fill all the vacancies.

Simple solution - have conservative judges move to Hawai'i, Oregon, California, nominate them, confirm them, install them, and BOHICA the Lefties.

Yes, I thought of that too but it won't work like that. There also isn't a big pool of qualified judges ready to change residence for a chance of being confirmed to something. It won't work unfortunately.

[Cincinnatus]

In each circuit (other than the Federal judicial circuit [DC]) there shall be at least one circuit judge in regular active service appointed from the residents of each state in that circuit

This is because there needs to be a federal circuit judge in every state to deal with matters in that state such as injunctions. The CA9 is in San Francisco but judges maintain offices in every state in the circuit. That means some judge seats must come from certain states.

Simple solution - have conservative judges move to Hawai'i, Oregon, California, nominate them, confirm them, install them, and BOHICA the Lefties.

[TempleKnight]

What's the reason for the slowness on this? There's some chance of the Republicans losing the senate in November, and if that happens, is Trump going to be able to appoint anyone? It seems to me that the logical thing would be to rush these through now while we know it's possible. I must be missing something because obviously Trump and the Republicans have considered this issue.

I thought that until recently Schumer was using procedural tactics on each nominee to take the maximum time. Something has changed and the dems are not happy with Schumer.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17797770/chuck-schumer-trump-judicial-nominees

[green grunt]

^"Schumer is not doing a good enough job whipping members"


Kind of like that statement .......

[Paladin]

I do not know how many, if any, are for CA9, but ...

But some liberal groups are complaining that other Democrats from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, on down haven’t been putting up enough of a fight.

“The Supreme Court is on the line, and you are failing us,” a letter from from 13 liberal groups, including the Women’s March, DailyKos, Friends of the Earth and Justice Democrats, to Schumer said.

The letter described Kavanaugh as “an extremist who will help institutionalize Trump’s hate for a generation.”

“Your job as Senate Democratic leader is to lead your caucus in complete opposition to Trump's attempted Supreme Court takeover and to defend everyone threatened by a Trump Supreme Court,” the letter said. “But unbelievably, nearly two dozen Democrats have still not come out against Kavanaugh, and just last week, you helped Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fast track 15 Trump judicial nominees. That is not the leadership we need.”

The letter does acknowledge that Schumer’s hands are tied to a large extent by the harsh realities of Senate math. Republicans need a simple majority and hold 51 Senate seats, meaning that Democrats are hoping that two Republicans -- namely moderate Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine -- break ranks.

But the letter indicates that the groups believe Schumer is not doing a good enough job whipping members to vote against Kavanaugh.

More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ailing-us.html