Posted on 05/25/2017 11:24:07 AM PDT by winoneforthegipper
“IMO, there needs to be a method of removing judges who will not conform to sound judicial practices.”
There is. Impeachment. However, once again Congress is not doing its job. Ryan and the GOP leadership have no interest in beginning the process of removing bad judges.
Another option. Congress has the power under the Constitution to limit the jurisdiction of the courts. Congress can simply pass a law declaring the federal courts do not have jurisdiction over issues related to immigration and naturalization policy. Congress can also pass a law stating non-citizens do not have Constitutional right and the courts cannot give rights to non-citizens. However, the Republican leadership in Congress has no interest in doing so.
Judicial review, as practiced today, is not enshrined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared itself to have the power to overturn actions by the President and Congress. Congress seems quite content to allow the Courts interfere with its Constitutional powers. One day, likely under a Democrat administration, a President is going to declare he is not bound by the rulings of the courts. We will have a Constitutional crisis and if the president chooses the issue where he/she makes a stand well, the crisis will quickly pass and the President going forward will not be bound by the arbitrary political rulings of the inferior courts.
Please go read the opinion.
The link is posted earlier in this thread.
Read the dissenting opinions.
Please. It is a civic duty.
AG Sessions is the absolute wrong AG in this administration. We are getting steamrolled. Anything affiliated with Obama and even Bush from AG to Judge needs to go. They need to be purged for the sake of the Republic.
Sessions is not a war-time consigliere.
No problem. It was a normal reaction, different courts and all.
I agree with your take on it.
Splitting the Ninth would accomplish something though. It is very reasoned to do, a the court has way too many cases compared to the other courts.
Split the staff also. (If you wish to continue to be a judge in an appeals court, half of you will have to move to the new court.)
Then make appointments to fill each court assuring close to parity in beliefs on each court, the original and the new one.
To minimize the ability for the justices to complain, keep the courts in the same city. There would be two courts in one city. Some may say this was a bad idea, but if you think about it, the court for the region had always been there. Splitting the region would not change that fact.
This way the Leftist judges couldn’t belch about having to leave their home and family.
Just split the court and appoint new judges.
To do it this way, you might have to split the districts right down the state of California, so the two courts could remain in once city. The details could be worked out.
You instantly come up with two fairly sound courts. I say this because there are a few decent justices on the court now. Splitting them and adding in half of a new court bench, should give Conservatives the majority on each court.
Problem solved.
As for Trump appointing new justices over time, I’m really looking forward to that. It’s going to be a massive sea change for the nation.
I agree with your comments.
I will say, I sure wish we had a GOP in Congress. It’s just worthless.
I’m going to link you to some comments I made here.
You may disagree with them, but I like the ideas presented.
Take care.
Just ask Robert E. Lee.
The Chief Judge was appointed by Clinton - it looks like, according to the pdf on file (as I read it) 13 total heard the case, the other 12 were appointed by:
Obama - 5
Reagan - 1
Clinton - 2
Bush - 4
Two that dissented were appointed by Bush and one by Reagan - that makes up for the 3 who are "missing" from the total of 18.
I may have misinterpreted or missed something browsing the brief - 209 pages of it, but it looks like B ush did even more harm than we were fully aware of.
Thanks - I’ve since went out and found the pdf (209 pages) and it looks like you are probably correct - Obama had the most with 5 and Bush had 4 of them. I would hazard that your statement about it not mattering would be mainly for Dems because their appointees invariably rule wrongly - Bush turned out to be a real “compassionate” traitor with some of his - not to mention Roberts....
Just did - the dissenters used actual reason while those who upheld used emotional claptrap.
OK, Great Time to sue over Obama's 'you can keep your doctor', 'you can keep your insurance' and the promise To Lower Health Insurance Premiums by $2,500 Per Year. Time to talk to a lawyer........ Goodbye ObamaCare. Payback is a bitch!
“Imagine other enterprises where you would be kept on in your position, if you only performed your duties less than 15% of the time.”
Pretty much any government job outside of the military.
I’d love to argue that point, but you might win.
LOL
And they let Obama totally ignore enforcing our immigration laws. These are disgusting activists not JUDGES.
Clarification to the breakdown you provided. The “Senior Judge” judges are not active in these reviews. This Circuit has 15 authorized judges, and that is the group that needs considering. It appears two judges appointed by Republicans did not hear the case and were not involved in the opinions - so the split was essentially along party lines, showing the long term problem we have with a circuit weighted 10-5 in the D’s favor (the Chief Judge a recess appointment by Clinton who W reappointed - shame on him.
We will be lucky if the 5 currently 70 or older retire and are replaced by Trump appointees over the next 8 years - which would only provide a narrow 8-7 tilt in favor of Republican appointees.
Trump has 129 judicial vacancies with 9 pending appointments. Let’s pray his team will get these appointments filled quickly and the Senate moves his choices along - without the old approach of deferring to the local Senators’ personal approval. The 13 circuits are tilted 9 to 4 in the Democrats’ favor - the current openings could only bring one to a tie but hopefully shifts can occur over the next 8 years to level the field.
Thanks for the clarification - I was doing a “quick through” as I wanted some relevant info for my post....you did a much better job of defining/breaking it down.
This will go to the SC and I am not at all confident that the ruling will uphold the wording of the law that is the basis for the EO. If we get a ruling that is based on Trump hatred and emotionalism, we will have a precedent that the US cannot stop immigration and is legally an open borders country. We will also have established that the Judicial Branch is the ultimate ruling branch of government over the Executive and the Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.