Plan B Forum

How can the 9th-circuit constitutional do this? Both the states and the feds have the right do their own thing within the scope of their responsibilities, but neither has the right to expect the other government to foot the bill for it.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... spartandhp

President Trump is considering breaking up the Ninth 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 Ninth 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 Ninth 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 Ninth 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 Ninth Circuit Court covers Arizona, California, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Hawaii, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

liberty wrote:The Ninth Circuit Court covers Arizona, California, Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Washington and Hawaii, as well as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Wow.  So much more than just "a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific", huh, Mr. Sessions?

-"BB"-

At this point, (Lord Dampnut's erroneous characterization to the contrary not withstanding) the Ninth Circuit has said nothing about Trump's sanctuary city EO. Two federal judges, (not appellate judges) have stayed implementation of the order (one in Hawaii and one in San Francisco)

Both of these decisions will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, because that's who has jurisdiction over these particular federal courts.

Yes, it's true that as a legal strategy the people bringing these cases chose to bring them where they believed they would have the greatest chance of prevailing at both the district and appellate levels. You can like or dislike this practice, but it's one that's engaged in by both sides. (Conservatives did the same thing when trying to stop Obama EOs)

As I said before, I'm opposed to the concept of "sanctuary cities" and would like to see the practice eliminated, but there's a larger to be issue to be adjudicated with this EO. It's the question of whether a President (any President) has the power to withhold federal funds from a state or locality based on criteria that they have unilaterally imposed that was not set by Congress.

Quite apart from Trump's personal pique, there actually is a strong case to be made to divide the Ninth Circuit in two, and create a new 12th Circuit court:

The United States courts of appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of Americans, the United States courts of appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to review less than 2% of the more than 7,000 to 8,000 cases filed with it annually,[2] the U.S. courts of appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases. The Ninth Circuit in particular is very influential, covering 20% of the American population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... of_appeals

The 20 percent of the population that the Ninth Circuit covers is nearly twice as high as that covered by the next highest population circuit court, and the 29 judges authorized for the circuit is 12 more than any other circuit. (If you follow the above link and scroll down, you'll see a table that shows all 11 circuits, the population they cover, and the number of judges they are authorized to have)

A simple and logical way to do it based on the population would be to have one circuit court just for California, (which with it's 39 million population would still make it the largest population circuit ) and then put all of the other states currently covered by the 9th Circuit into the newly created circuit court, (divide the judges 17-12 between the two courts which would be in line with the other appellate courts based on the populations they cover.)

Should have done that when they divided the old 5th Circuit and added the 11th Circuit.

liberty wrote:Both the states and the feds have the right do their own thing within the scope of their responsibilities, but neither has the right to expect the other government to foot the bill for it.

That's right, moron. That is precisely the reason why states and cities should not be required to use their own resources to do the federal government's immigration dirty work for it.

But stupid as you are, you had no clue that you were arguing against your own position.

Besides which, you have argued in the past that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to commandeer state and local officials for federal purposes. Apparently your "principles" change with the weather.

Lord Jim wrote:At this point, (Lord Dampnut's erroneous characterization to the contrary not withstanding) the Ninth Circuit has said nothing about Trump's sanctuary city EO. Two federal judges, (not appellate judges) have stayed implementation of the order (one in Hawaii and one in San Francisco)

Both of these decisions will now be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, because that's who has jurisdiction over these particular federal courts.

Yes, it's true that as a legal strategy the people bringing these cases chose to bring them where they believed they would have the greatest chance of prevailing at both the district and appellate levels. You can like or dislike this practice, but it's one that's engaged in by both sides. (Conservatives did the same thing when trying to stop Obama EOs)

As I said before, I'm opposed to the concept of "sanctuary cities" and would like to see the practice eliminated, but there's a larger to be issue to be adjudicated with this EO. It's the question of whether a President (any President) has the power to withhold federal funds from a state or locality based on criteria that they have unilaterally imposed that was not set by Congress.

Quite apart from Trump's personal pique, there actually is a strong case to be made to divide the Ninth Circuit in two, and create a new 12th Circuit court:

The United States courts of appeals are considered among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Because of their ability to set legal precedent in regions that cover millions of Americans, the United States courts of appeals have strong policy influence on U.S. law. Moreover, because the U.S. Supreme Court chooses to review less than 2% of the more than 7,000 to 8,000 cases filed with it annually,[2] the U.S. courts of appeals serve as the final arbiter on most federal cases. The Ninth Circuit in particular is very influential, covering 20% of the American population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... of_appeals

The 20 percent of the population that the Ninth Circuit covers is nearly twice as high as that covered by the next highest population circuit court, and the 29 judges authorized for the circuit is 12 more than any other circuit. (If you follow the above link and scroll down, you'll see a table that shows all 11 circuits, the population they cover, and the number of judges they are authorized to have)

A simple and logical way to do it based on the population would be to have one circuit court just for California, (which with it's 39 million population would still make it the largest population circuit ) and then put all of the other states currently covered by the 9th Circuit into the newly created circuit court, (divide the judges 17-12 between the two courts which would be in line with the other appellate courts based on the populations they cover.)

Gee Jim, shades of FDR and the court packing plan, and the famous switch in time that saved nine. Id there is a reason to create a new circuit, perhaps it should be considered, but not when there are political disputes raging between the executive and judiciary related to that circuit. That's just a bad precedent to set.

Oh, I agree that the current political environment makes doing this pretty pretty much impossible at this time...(As Long Run suggests, it should have been done much earlier)

But I wasn't addressing the timing; only the objective merits...

It would take some truly skillful rhetorical legerdemain to make the case justifying why it makes perfect sense to have one circuit court out of 11 with jurisdiction over one fifth of the country's population...

This is just more idiocy from Trump that panders to the ignorance of his base, because that is not how any of this works. What is the supposed object of "breaking up the 9th Circuit"? Trump thinks that sounds like he's somehow striking back at the Court, as if he were punching it in the nose, or perhaps like "breaking up" a criminal liberal enterprise. But it's not like there won't still be cases arising from its component District Courts that still need to be decided, and both the appellate and District Court judges all have lifetime appointments, so they would simply be redistributed to any newly created circuit. Moreover, "the 9th Circuit" doesn't even hear cases; appeals are heard by only a three-judge panel, and even in the rare case of en banc proceedings, only the Chief Judge and 10 randomly assigned judges (out of 29 active and 19 senior judges on the court) hear the appeal.

I would argue that there is actually an excellent case to be made for having fewer circuits: The more co-equal intermediate appellate courts you have, the greater the risk of conflicting decisions between any two (or more) circuits, leaving people in different parts of the country subject to different rules and putting more pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve splits among the circuits.

In conclusion, Donald Trump is a dope.

Sue U wrote:This is just more idiocy from Trump that panders to the ignorance of his base, because that is not how any of this works. What is the supposed object of "breaking up the 9th Circuit"? Trump thinks that sounds like he's somehow striking back at the Court, as if he were punching it in the nose, or perhaps like "breaking up" a criminal liberal enterprise. But it's not like there won't still be cases arising from its component District Courts that still need to be decided, and both the appellate and District Court judges all have lifetime appointments, so they would simply be redistributed to any newly created circuit. Moreover, "the 9th Circuit" doesn't even hear cases; appeals are heard by only a three-judge panel, and even in the rare case of en banc proceedings, only the Chief Judge and 10 randomly assigned judges (out of 29 active and 19 senior judges on the court) hear the appeal.

I would argue that there is actually an excellent case to be made for having fewer circuits: The more co-equal intermediate appellate courts you have, the greater the risk of conflicting decisions between any two (or more) circuits, leaving people in different parts of the country subject to different rules and putting more pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve splits among the circuits.

In conclusion, Donald Trump is a dope.

Not just a dope, a stupid idiot who has no fucking clue how the federal court system works. Or pretty much anything about the entire federal government, except how to get the most graft and patronage out of it.

Not sure I see all that much a difference between a stupid idiot, a dope, and Trump.

hah!

thanks guin, i gotta smile outta that.....

when my cousin tommy and I were young, "stupid idiot" was like the worst insult we had for each other....

simpler times they were....

yrs

yoda bato

...as far as the 9th circuit....

Down with hotpants!!!!!