04-27-2017, 10:40 AM
(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.
