Trump says he may break up 9th Circuit Court after rulings go against him

[GMDino]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330757-trump-says-hes-absolutely-considering-breaking-up-court-that-blocked

Quote:President Trump is considering breaking up the 9th Circuit Court after a federal district court judge in its jurisdiction blocked his order to withhold funding from "sanctuary cities."



In a Wednesday interview with the Washington Examiner, Trump said "there are many people who want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."


In the interview, Trump accused liberals of "judge-shopping" for a court that would strike down his executive order.


"I mean, the language on the ban, it reads so easy that a reasonably good student in the first grade will fully understand it. And they don't even mention the words in their rejection on the ban," Trump said.


Trump claimed the court oversteps its authority and that his opponents "immediately run" to the court for "semi-automatic" rulings.

The 9th Circuit earlier this year blocked Trump's executive order that barred immigration from certain Muslim-majority countries and banned all Syrian refugees from the U.S. for a period of time.
Earlier Wednesday, Trump railed against the 9th Circuit over a judge blocking his order withholding funds from sanctuary cities.


If Trump decides to move forward with plans to break up the court, he'll have Republican support. Earlier this year, Sen Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) voiced support for breaking up the court, which is seen as one of the most liberal in the country.


On Tuesday, a federal judge rejected Trump's order to defund sanctuary cities, arguing that the White House had overreached with requirements not related to law enforcement.

The 9th Circuit Court covers Arizona, California, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Hawaii, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.
 
Eighteen of the court's 25 judges were appointed by Democratic presidents.

He must be so tired of winning.

[*michaelsean*]

I didn't know he could do that. I thought inferior courts were in the hands of Congress.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-27-2017, 07:29 AM)GMDino Wrote: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330757-trump-says-hes-absolutely-considering-breaking-up-court-that-blocked



He must be so tired of winning.

I think it's important to point out that he can't do that without the help of congress. Such articles like these can incite Trump mob mentality and cause people to ignore all the other key players in such a decision.

[BmorePat87]

(04-27-2017, 08:41 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't know he could do that.  I thought inferior courts were in the hands of Congress.

I think the reality is Congress would vote to do it and he would just sign the law. 

There's an argument to be made outside of partisan reasons: that circuit is twice as big as the next circuit. The reason they haven't yet? Even if you put California in a new circuit, the same judges will still make the same decisions. 

There's this argument against it:

Quote: In an interview with CNN Wednesday night, Kozinski declined to comment directly on the President's statement, but he made clear he thinks splitting up the 9th Circuit is a "bad idea."

"It doesn't accomplish anything," he said, and noted that unless California is split into two circuits, there would still be one very large circuit composed of mostly judges from the state. "We would miss out on having judges from other states," he said. "It's good to have the perspective of judges who don't all come from the same region."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/9th-circuit-what-to-know/

Also the guy who ruled against the sanctuary city thing is a district judge.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 09:01 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think the reality is Congress would vote to do it and he would just sign the law. 

There's an argument to be made outside of partisan reasons: that circuit is twice as big as the next circuit. The reason they haven't yet? Even if you put California in a new circuit, the same judges will still make the same decisions. 

There's this argument against it:


http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/26/politics/9th-circuit-what-to-know/

Also the guy who ruled against the sanctuary city thing is a district judge.

These recent rules raise interesting points though.  The Dems are clearly judge shopping when they file their motions against Trump's EO's in the 9th circuit.  IIRC on the first immigration order a federal judge on the east coast upheld the EO, citing well established precedent.  If two judges are giving completely divergent rulings on the same subject then something is very wrong.  Perhaps the best response to this would be a judicial panel that examines rulings that are overturned by Scotus or state supreme courts for diverging wildly from precedence or even being poorly made.  Maybe a three strike and the judge is out type rule.  That might curb the partisan leanings of all but the worst offenders.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These recent rules raise interesting points though.  The Dems are clearly judge shopping when they file their motions against Trump's EO's in the 9th circuit.  IIRC on the first immigration order a federal judge on the east coast upheld the EO, citing well established precedent.  If two judges are giving completely divergent rulings on the same subject then something is very wrong.

And if one disagrees with a multitude of the others?

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Perhaps the best response to this would be a judicial panel that examines rulings that are overturned by Scotus or state supreme courts for diverging wildly from precedence or even being poorly made.  Maybe a three strike and the judge is out type rule.  That might curb the partisan leanings of all but the worst offenders.

You're saying a special panel to look at judgements YOU disagree with? Color me stunned.

Would you like to hand pick the "special panel"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: And if one disagrees with a multitude of the others?

Hmm, it would appear that my point would still stand.  Unless you're talking about the SCOTUS, in which case that's how the system is designed to work, albeit imperfectly.

Quote:You're saying a special panel to look at judgements YOU disagree with?  Color me stunned.

Not what I said, Fred.

Quote:Would you like to hand pick the "special panel"?  

I don't think I'd be remotely qualified to do so.  Any other facetious comments or questions to add?

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hmm, it would appear that my point would still stand.  Unless you're talking about the SCOTUS, in which case that's how the system is designed to work, albeit imperfectly.

So, you are saying that if one judge disagrees against many your "point" that:

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  If two judges are giving completely divergent rulings on the same subject then something is very wrong.

Still applies?

One versus one. Maybe. One versus ten? Not so much.

I know you are never wrong but perhaps you are mistaken on this one? I mean at what point would someone say the vast majority agree and there is one outlier so we can exclude the one?

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not what I said, Fred.

Really?

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perhaps the best response to this would be a judicial panel that examines rulings that are overturned by Scotus or state supreme courts for diverging wildly from precedence or even being poorly made.

You included the SC there. So who would decide if they were "poorly made"? If not you, I mean.

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think I'd be remotely qualified to do so.  

Ah. Never mind.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 11:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: So, you are saying that if one judge disagrees against many your "point" that:


Still applies?

One versus one.  Maybe.  One versus ten?  Not so much.

I know you are never wrong but perhaps you are mistaken on this one?  I mean at what point would someone say the vast majority agree and there is one outlier so we can exclude the one?

I already explained this.  BTW, you're not intelligent enough by half to trap me the way you tried in that post.  Pathetically obvious.

Quote:Really?

Really, Fred.

Quote:You included the SC there.  So who would decide if they were "poorly made"?  If not you, I mean.

Again, this point has been addressed.  Do you really have to be right so bad you deliberately misunderstand the points of others?

Quote:Ah.  Never mind.  

Hahaha, eminently predictable.

[*michaelsean*]

I have a question. Assuming this 9th circuit is quite liberal as people say, how did it get that way? I know it's in a liberal area, but these judges are appointed by Presidents, and I have to imagine quite a few have been appointed by Republicans.

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 11:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a question.  Assuming this 9th circuit is quite liberal as people say, how did it get that way?  I know it's in a liberal area, but these judges are appointed by Presidents, and I have to imagine quite a few have been appointed by Republicans.

I read (may even have been this thread) that a majority are appointed by democrats.

I don't if that makes it "liberal" as the recent SC nomination process has told us that judges are not political...they simply interpret the law as it should be. 

[Belsnickel]

You can't remove partisanship from judicial proceedings like this. It's not possible. Judges are politicians just like elected officials and, let's be honest, their decisions are subjective. This isn't an exact science, ideology plays a role in every single interpretation of the law that comes from any bench. Period. And if you think the right doesn't judge shop to take advantage of it as well, you're kidding yourself.

There are certainly jurists out there that let their biases show a bit too much from time to time, but people only care when they disagree with the decision and when the topic is bright and shiny to get the attention of everyone. I just wish people would stop pretending that the judiciary is somehow supposed to be without fault and objective when it is anything but. After all, if they were all textualists we wouldn't need any of them.

[Millhouse]

(04-27-2017, 12:25 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You can't remove partisanship from judicial proceedings like this. It's not possible. Judges are politicians just like elected officials and, let's be honest, their decisions are subjective. This isn't an exact science, ideology plays a role in every single interpretation of the law that comes from any bench. Period. And if you think the right doesn't judge shop to take advantage of it as well, you're kidding yourself.

There are certainly jurists out there that let their biases show a bit too much from time to time, but people only care when they disagree with the decision and when the topic is bright and shiny to get the attention of everyone. I just wish people would stop pretending that the judiciary is somehow supposed to be without fault and objective when it is anything but. After all, if they were all textualists we wouldn't need any of them.

True. Where was this judge back when Obama mandated schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms, or federal funding may be cut out to them? Take the moral & political feelings away from that issue, what is really the difference between the two threats of cutting federal funding.

[*bfine32*]

Trump is learning the hard way about checks and balances. I understand his frustration that all his EOs seem to get shot down in the historically liberal courts; however, there are presidential ways to go about rectifying this.

[BmorePat87]

(04-27-2017, 10:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: These recent rules raise interesting points though.  The Dems are clearly judge shopping when they file their motions against Trump's EO's in the 9th circuit.  IIRC on the first immigration order a federal judge on the east coast upheld the EO, citing well established precedent.  If two judges are giving completely divergent rulings on the same subject then something is very wrong.  Perhaps the best response to this would be a judicial panel that examines rulings that are overturned by Scotus or state supreme courts for diverging wildly from precedence or even being poorly made.  Maybe a three strike and the judge is out type rule.  That might curb the partisan leanings of all but the worst offenders.

The issue is who are we grading and what criteria? Trump keeps railing against the 9th Circuit and he said "80%" of their decisions are overturned, but that's the Court of Appeal's record and his current issue is just with a district court in that circuit. 

So are we grading district courts? Very few of their cases are heard by the appellate court and even fewer of those are heard by the Supreme Court. The district courts in that circuit have an overturn rate of 1% for ALL of their cases.

If we're grading the appellate courts, 80% isn't too wild. That's actually 79% and it's from 2010-2015. The SCOTUS average was 70%. the highest was the 6th circuit at 87% and 11th at 85%. Those two circuits went entirely Trump in 2016. The 3rd was 78%. The average the decade prior to those numbers was 80% by SCOTUS. So what is an egregious number?

Not to mention the only checks there are suppose to be against partisan judges are removal if they commit crimes and the SCOTUS being the final ruling. For the most part, our SCOTUS make ups have been pretty even, preventing damaging partisan decisions from remaining.