About The First 9th Circuit Halt On Trump's Order

[Kathianne]

Seems there was a rebuke from full panel:

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/03/17/five-ninth-circuit-judges-file-rare-dissent-rebuking-the-panel-in-immigration-ruling/


...

The only judges to join in a written defense of the denial were the three judges from the panel — Judges William Canby, Richard Clifton, and Michelle Friedland — and perhaps the most liberal member of the Ninth Circuit, Judge Stephen Reinhardt. The original panelists noted that “The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration.”

...

[jimnyc]

Would you be so kinda as to give me a "dummies" version? I'm not so sure I fully understand what I'm reading. But that's not surprising, a lot of the court lingo is WAY above my pay grade! LOL

[Black Diamond]

Would you be so kinda as to give me a "dummies" version? I'm not so sure I fully understand what I'm reading. But that's not surprising, a lot of the court lingo is WAY above my pay grade! LOL
Just like Obama with abortion.

[Kathianne]

Would you be so kinda as to give me a "dummies" version? I'm not so sure I fully understand what I'm reading. But that's not surprising, a lot of the court lingo is WAY above my pay grade! LOL

At the core it was that the panel ignored the precedents, along with interjecting the courts into the vast leeway the president/executive has in this type of order. By doing so, they undermined the people's faith in the courts.

At the same time, they rebuked the language the administration has used towards the judiciary, though rulings like this are part of the problem.

[jimnyc]

At the core it was that the panel ignored the precedents, along with interjecting the courts into the vast leeway the president/executive has in this type of order. By doing so, they undermined the people's faith in the courts.

At the same time, they rebuked the language the administration has used towards the judiciary, though rulings like this are part of the problem.

Kinda of what I thought, in jumbled words in my head. Your words sound so much better. Nah, truth was I was a little lost. Your couple of sentences made it much easier to understand. :)

Thanks!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

At the core it was that the panel ignored the precedents, along with interjecting the courts into the vast leeway the president/executive has in this type of order. By doing so, they undermined the people's faith in the courts.

At the same time, they rebuked the language the administration has used towards the judiciary, though rulings like this are part of the problem.

In doing so, they took their robes off and became full fledged politicians/groupies, IMHO...
TOSSING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER SO AS TO BE ABLE TO SLAP BACK AT TRUMP PERSONALLY..
SUCH HAUGHTY PRIDE, VINDICTIVE BEHAVIOR SHOWS THEM DERELICT IN DUTY AND SWORN OATH OF OFFICE..-TYR

[jimnyc]

In doing so, they took their robes off and became full fledged politicians/groupies, IMHO...
TOSSING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER SO AS TO BE ABLE TO SLAP BACK AT TRUMP PERSONALLY..
SUCH HAUGHTY PRIDE, VINDICTIVE BEHAVIOR SHOWS THEM DERELICT IN DUTY AND SWORN OATH OF OFFICE..-TYR

Hasn't the 9th always been the wackjob activists leaning left?

[aboutime]

Would you be so kinda as to give me a "dummies" version? I'm not so sure I fully understand what I'm reading. But that's not surprising, a lot of the court lingo is WAY above my pay grade! LOL


Jim. If I may here? Short and sweet. The 9th circuit judges used language that Trump used during the campaign to decide what they politically...not judicially....wanted.
Actually. The three judges in the 9th, and every Federal judge since they ruled, who were against Trump....DID NOT FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.
The President is DUTY BOUND to protect America, and Americans. According to the Constitution. That is his MAJOR responsibility. The judges were making their OWN versions of the Law.

[aboutime]

Hasn't the 9th always been the wackjob activists leaning left?



Yes. They are better known as the 9TH CIRCUS COURT, because they have been overruled by the Supreme Court so many times.:salute:

[Elessar]

Hasn't the 9th always been the wackjob activists leaning left?

Single word response: Yep!

[Kathianne]

I agree that most of the cases that have become 'news' to those outside of their jurisdiction are definitely left politically.

However, it was the same complete bevy of the 9th that wrote the rebuke in the OP.

[KarlMarx]

I heard this on Mark Levin and it jogged my memory

Congress has the authority to establish the lower courts and, thus, defines their jurisdiction under Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution....


SO????????

Congress would be within its Constitutional authority to tell the lower courts that they could no longer rule on matters of immigration. It's that simple. Then any such cases would probably have to be decided by the Supreme Court... and I am willing to bet money that if things continue, that is exactly where we are headed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction_stripping

[gabosaurus]

The dissenting judges make some interesting points. And they could have some impact.


This particular case isn’t going to go up to the Supreme Court, because the order is moot — there’s no controversy left between the parties; the controversy is among 9th Circuit judges about whether a 9th Circuit precedent should be vacated, but the Supreme Court won’t be concerned about that particular dispute. However, the dispute about the revised executive order will likely go up to the Supreme Court (especially if at least one circuit court concludes that the revised order is likewise invalid, perhaps citing the earlier 9th Circuit panel opinion as precedent). And at that point this five-judge dissent will be influential, as a major and detailed argument for the constitutionality of such executive orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/15/five-9th-circuit-judges-dissent-arguing-for-vacating-panel-decision-on-president-trumps-immigration-executive-order/

[aboutime]

The dissenting judges make some interesting points. And they could have some impact.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/15/five-9th-circuit-judges-dissent-arguing-for-vacating-panel-decision-on-president-trumps-immigration-executive-order/


gabby. SINCE you obviously haven't brought yourself up to date on the Constitution.

The ONLY way any judge...any Federal Judge, on any court, can stop Trump is....

To change the Constitution. The President's duties are VERY, VERY Clear. EVEN IF EVERY LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT, CROOKED JUDGE in this country Disagree's.