Court rules against Travel Ban
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
Lol. "Activist judge" = didn't rule the way I wanted.
Those judges were appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate.
Checks and balances, son.
But they are wrong, and that court gets overruled more than any other court in the country because:
1) the judges on the court don't understand the laws
2) the judges don't give a shit about laws, and go by their own feelings
Which is it?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SB_scorecard_OT15.pdf
Reversal rates: 2015 Term
CA 9- 80%
CA 10-75%
CA 11-100%
State Courts-85%
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SB_scorecard_OT14.pdf
Reversal rates: 2014 term
9th-63%
10th-75%
11th-100%
8th-88%
6th-80%
2nd-100%
3rd-100%
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_scorecard_OT13.pdf
Reversal rates: 2013 Term
9th-92%
3rd-100%
5th 86%
8th 100%
http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scorecards_OT12.pdf
Reversal rates: 2012
9th-86%
5th-86%
3rd-85%
1-100%
6-100%
8-100%
11-100%
The 9th routinely has more cases heard by the Supreme Court, so more opportunities to be overturned.....by a divided court with an arguably activist Chief Judge itself (remember turning the ACA into a "tax" so it would be constitutional to him).
Furthermore, the total reversal rate for the Supreme Court has run 67-75% revocations during this years. Which reflects the 9th is marginally more liberal than the Supreme Court and not an out of control activist court ignoring the law.
Reversal rates: 2015 Term
CA 9- 80%
CA 10-75%
CA 11-100%
State Courts-85%
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SB_scorecard_OT14.pdf
Reversal rates: 2014 term
9th-63%
10th-75%
11th-100%
8th-88%
6th-80%
2nd-100%
3rd-100%
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/SCOTUSblog_scorecard_OT13.pdf
Reversal rates: 2013 Term
9th-92%
3rd-100%
5th 86%
8th 100%
http://scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/scorecards_OT12.pdf
Reversal rates: 2012
9th-86%
5th-86%
3rd-85%
1-100%
6-100%
8-100%
11-100%
The 9th routinely has more cases heard by the Supreme Court, so more opportunities to be overturned.....by a divided court with an arguably activist Chief Judge itself (remember turning the ACA into a "tax" so it would be constitutional to him).
Furthermore, the total reversal rate for the Supreme Court has run 67-75% revocations during this years. Which reflects the 9th is marginally more liberal than the Supreme Court and not an out of control activist court ignoring the law.
Wrong on the decision to lift the temporary restraining order or just wrong on the merits?
Because IMO they aren't wrong on not lifting the TRO, and they haven't issued an opinion on the underlying merits in a permanent injunction hearing.
So, as the Pres has said....see you in court.
Some things to keep in mind about yesterday's decision.
It was not a decision on the merits/legality of the EO itself.
It was a decision as to whether national security interests will be seriously damaged in the interim of the actual hearing on the merits if it is not lifted immediately.
This is neither a constitutional crisis, a huge defeat to Trump, nor a serious threat to our critical security interests like Trump claims.
A pretty fair evaluation of the decision, IMO.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion
And the actual order itself in case anyone (you know) wants to read and analyze it legally instead of citing dodgy statistical claims about the 9th circuit. Be forewarned, it's a CNN "fake news" link....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html
It was not a decision on the merits/legality of the EO itself.
It was a decision as to whether national security interests will be seriously damaged in the interim of the actual hearing on the merits if it is not lifted immediately.
This is neither a constitutional crisis, a huge defeat to Trump, nor a serious threat to our critical security interests like Trump claims.
A pretty fair evaluation of the decision, IMO.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/how-read-and-how-not-read-todays-9th-circuit-opinion
And the actual order itself in case anyone (you know) wants to read and analyze it legally instead of citing dodgy statistical claims about the 9th circuit. Be forewarned, it's a CNN "fake news" link....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling-full-text/index.html
Last edited:
I sincerely hope there are no domestic terror issues between now and when SCOTUS overturns this decision.
however, like the GOP will own healthcare after repeal replace, the DNC owns them if they happen.
And the days of POTUS deflecting such things on lack of gun control are over.
Legislation from the bench will be bad optics.
however, like the GOP will own healthcare after repeal replace, the DNC owns them if they happen.
And the days of POTUS deflecting such things on lack of gun control are over.
Legislation from the bench will be bad optics.
Last edited:
Odd you don't hold the GOP Administration that authored this POS accountable.... Participation trophy for the POTUS - "he tried real hard even if he couldn't get the basics right let's call him a hero... " - brilliant.
Just chiming in here, have not read whole thread..........As most know I don't particularly care for President Trump, and no , I am not a Liberal.........but, this case will most likely not hold up once its actually looked at for its merits........this Temporary restraining order could very well hold up in SCOTUS, if President Trump decides to go that way, but, again, that is not actually looking at the actual Order, just the restraining order
Domestic terror acts by someone let into the country in this interim between the TRO and a SCOTUS decision, if it comes....I'd buy.
I'd hedge my bets on SCOTUS overturning THIS decision. This wasn't a decision on the merits of the order. It might not even be appealed in favor of proceeding to the hearing on the merits quicker. I'd also hedge my bets in the EO being upheld legally and constitutionally in its entirety. My bet would be that it is ultimately upheld in part and struck in part if they go the route of defending everything instead of taking a shot at rewriting it.
If the Republicn President believes there is a clear and present danger to the citizenry he has a duty to author a Constitutionally defensible executive order - instead he played politics and let his ego get in the way. To blame a court for fulfilling their legal duty for his material defects is unconscionable- to suggest that any harm that comes as a result of Trumps ignorance or ego any where else is pure team politics. You should be ashamed.
I'm not ashamed and you have utterly failed to grasp my meaning.
1. I agreed from the beginning it was awkwardly rolled out. Trump's ego may well gabe played a negative role - but I still like the fact that he did what he said he would do and I like most Americans and Europeans, support the ban.
2. I'm unconvinced as to it's unconstitutional status.
3. I'm not blaming the court. They are what they are - glorified Lawyers appointed to legislate from the bench, which they have done.
4. What I suggested is that IF a terrorist attach hapoens, it'll be bad PR for the people who argued for refugees and it'll play out in the midterms.
David, My wife (@GlowPoke) and I had dinner tonight with an immigrant who passionately expressed support for Trump and his travel ban. It's not team politics. It's common sense for a lot of people.
You are virtue signaling. I like you but don't tell me I should be ashamed of a genuine belief. That is beneath you.
President Trump will figure a way around, over, under, or through the politicized courts if need be to accomplish what he was elected to do on this issue and all the rest. I like the pushback because it showcases his tenacity and makes for a good brawl in which he thrives. Beware the quiet and the calm.
You're unconvinced as to the unlawfulness of the order, yet you're sure the glorified lawyers legislated from the bench. I wouldn't characterize that as common sense. That's closer to team politics.
What team? GOP? hate em. DNC hate em?
I'm proudly on the anti-globalist team. So far, Trump is the closest thing to that. For now.
Do you honestly think judicial activism isn't a problem?
You are very clearly team Trump... to the point of suspending critical thinking. Makes me sad. #MMGAWhat team? GOP? hate em. DNC hate em?
I'm proudly on the anti-globalist team. So far, Trump is the closest thing to that. For now.
Do you honestly think judicial activism isn't a problem?
Wrong.
What you are seeing is a guy who reluctantly voted for him and has seen more people behave like complete spoiled bitches over losing than I imagined possible.
It's pushed me into an uncomfortable position of defending my vote against asinine, ridiculous charges of nazism, islamaphobis etc. riots, media and celebrity meltdowns and daily attacks. No honeymoon period. No benefit of the doubt. Just constant breathless panic and exaggeration.
It's annoying and it's mostly ridiculous to the point that it's hard to look critically at what the guy does. I know plenty of it is worth examining but I'm exhausted by the shit being pulled purely for the sake of opposition.
Guess what? Don't give a shit if anyone thinks that makes me a cheerleader. I know what I'm seeing. And for someone claiming not to be a team democrat - you sure talk like one lately too.
Trump is an ass. But it's ass who might possibly potentially have an authoritarian nationalism problem - maybe - vs ceratain globaoism, I'll take the ass.
The travel ban is a cluster****. But I'm for it.
Was for it for years. It's not something I adopted because Trump.
It's hard to not be a cheerleader when the collective left is stumbling around in complete agony over every single breath Trump takes. The constant whining and chicken littling is how I know Trump is getting this country off of the illogical progressive path 0bama put us on. Time for some f*cking reality, folks.
I am right.
You admit I am right.
You're right.
You're right again!
And again... (nice ellipsis BTW)
#MMGA
What team? GOP? hate em. DNC hate em?
I'm proudly on the anti-globalist team. So far, Trump is the closest thing to that. For now.
Do you honestly think judicial activism isn't a problem?
Nice pivot attempt from specific to general.
We were talking about a specific decision. I've read it, and there is zero legislating from the bench in it. Have you?
Now to address your pivot.
Yes, Team Trump is exactly what I was referring to.
As for judicial activism....specific judges have problems with judicial activism/legislating from the bench. Those judges come both sides of the political spectrum and appointments. It is problematic when they engage in the same. With multiple levels of review of any decision, I don't see it as a problem that threatens the judicial system. To the extent it is a problem, it is the result of the executive branch and legislative branch appointing and confirming not on the quality of the judge, but upon political and legal positions they hope and desire the judge to have in advance.
Mostly though, judicial activism/legislating from the bench claims are code for the court didnt rule the way I wanted on a constitutional or statutory interpretation decision.
Are we calling it a ban now? Because at one point that was denied repeatedly.
Reasonable minds can certainly disagree on the advisability of a ban, suspension, extreme vetting.
What I don't think reasonable minds can disagree on is we want the President's EOs to be constitutional and legal.
An appeals court continuing a temporary restraining order of a trial court while the constitutionality and legality of the EO is in no way legislating from the bench. Hell, finding it unconstitutional or unlawful isn't legislating from the bench. Suggesting or arguing that it is, particularly without reading and analyzing the actual order or being unconvinced one way or the other creeps into cheerleading territory, IMO.
Damn, what was Carmen's problem with AZ?
BJ, you have bought into propaganda just as much as he has. Fact. We've all bought into some kind of propaganda.
I just don't believe that the 9th circuit did any damage to our national security. It is in no worse condition than it was 1 month ago.
Yeah, I know, terrorists are "pouring in" on a daily basis (at least Trump wants us all to believe that).
Addendum: FYI, my above opinion does not come from any "propaganda". I am just basing it on logical thinking and common sense.
Addendum: FYI, my above opinion does not come from any "propaganda". I am just basing it on logical thinking and common sense.
So here is the problem with liberals and why they burn stuff down and get so excited. Their side is logical (hilarious) and just common sense. It never occurs to them that they could possibly be dead wrong. Even bill orielly the most arrogant conservative errr independent there is follows up opinions with "I could be wrong."
That's not even an option for the pussy hat Muslim lovers. Trump is hitler. It doesn't matter that there is zero evidence, their opinions are universal truths. It's quite sickening.
Addendum: FYI, my above opinion does not come from any "propaganda". I am just basing it on logical thinking and common sense.
You also thought Ford was a good coach and that you were using logical thinking and common sense. You just don't have any introspection or self awareness. You are a fool and are just too dumb to see your own biases. Your opinion means less than nothing on this board. In fact, if I found myself agreeing with you, I'd have re-examine my position because history has proven you habitually on the wrong side of opinion.
/mic drop.gif
Similar threads
