Posted on 02/10/2017 3:57:26 PM PST by jazusamo
A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.”
That process would task the entire 11-judge appeals court at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening.
The news comes as the White House has said it would likely not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court or have it reviewed en banc, and instead said it would fight for the controversial policy in a lower district court in Seattle. But White House chief of staff Reince Priebus subsequently said that the administration is still considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Trump also told reporters on Friday that he is considering signing a “brand new order” on immigration and refugees. Reworking the ban to be narrower could give it a better chance of holding up in court.
The three-judge panel that heard the case this week included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.
The judge who requested the vote on whether to review the ruling is unknown.
crap! stabding = standing
I have a completely different take. I don’t trust any judge in the 9th circus. I’m more apt to believe that they are playing games. For example, if the 9th agrees to hear it en banc, does that prohibit Trump from going to the Supreme Court until the 9th is finished, thus delaying it further. The 9th takes a long time to come to a resolution. I don’t think it has anything to do with a judge thinking the three judges really stepped on it. Don’t trust them.
Ok, but first I’ll have either an almost frozen beer, a vodka martini or a glass of Rémy Martin Cognac. Well, maybe I’ll have all three............ or more. Then I will laugh.
After 8 years of the Obama nightmare, my empathy is completely gone.
Lifetime appointments, but here’s an idea.
Split the 9th into at least 2 districts and reassign each judge to the least convenient circuit, making them all move residences, (or commute their arses off ). It’s likely to yield more than a few retirements.
BINGO ! I like it.
Do it now while Republicans own the house, senate and Executive. It is rare to have all 3 take advantage of it !!!
They are overturned 80% of the time. Normal judges would be deeply ashamed of that.
Normally you would think so, but this group is not known for even giving a wink to the law. These are people who think the American people are stupid and we require smarter people (them) to rule us.
Good idea.
Read my #58 please. I’d like to get some feed back on that thought from people more knowledgeable in the law.
Also, does the administration have to submit the briefs requested by the 9th judge re an en banc hearing or can they ignore the request and go back to the circuit court?
“The judge who requested the vote on whether to review the ruling is unknown.”
Which means this entire story could just be made up.
Wait for something real to happen.
80% of the 9th circuits decisions are not overturned. 80% of the 9th circuits cases appealed to SCOTUS, and for which SCOTUS grants cert, are overturned. Only a small fraction of their decisions are appealed.
Still a horrible record.
I’m thinking along the same lines as you except in that the next step we want is back in district court instead of petitioning the SC now.
Sorry, the district judge is Robart instead of Hobart. He’s still a liberal shill.
En Banc order is here:
Ted Cruz is probably the Sharpest and Smartest Lawyer up there, He should be ARguing the Case for the President.
Is that a binding order? Looks like a stall tactic and perhaps to try to gin up more public support.
If I were one of the other judges on the 9th circus, I would be seriously embarrassed to be associated with those crackpots who denied the appeal...
I bet Ted would miss nothing during the proceeding!
Ah, ok. So the court did do it and did not id the judge.
Thanks for clarifying with source material!
My starting point for news is one of disbelief.
Lifetime appointments but for the “good behavior” clause.
When 86% of the 9th Circuit rulings are overturned, “good behavior” comes into sharper focus.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-most-overturned-court-us
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t believe the Administration has to submit a brief to the 9th — especially if they don’t care for the 9th to hear it en banc. As far as wanting to litigate it back in the district with Robart, I don’t see why they would. Robart has shown that he is not a judge who makes decisions based on the law and the Constitution. His decision was purely political with no reference to the law. Also, all the good arguments I’ve read that cited precedent re standing state that neither Wash or Min had standing to bring the suit since they were not the aggrieved parties, yet Robat granted them standing. There is no reason to believe this leftist judge would all of the sudden “see the light” and it would just be more wasted time as migrants flood our country.
The Old order was constitutional! The judges didn’t find anything unconstitutional; their findings were based on “feelings”.
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.