A copy was made a tweeted by Chris Geidner. Chris is the legal editor at BuzzFeedNews. He goes on to tweet This means that the entire appeals court will be voting on whether to reconsider Thursday night's decision. Briefs due by 11a PT Feb. 16
Of course can not find any Fakenews organization sharing this information
They are trying to cause delays for Trump. Nothing more. They expected him to request a full court review that would take months. Since it was a 3-0 decision and the President did not take their bait, I don’t see how it can go to the full circuit court unless one of the party’s specifically petitions for that. That is why they have the subset judicial decisions in the first place (because they are too unwieldy as a group and exceptionally slow in deliberations/decisions.)
Could this mean that the 9th Circus realized that they are no longer just the laughing stock of the country, but by their total obstructionist antics are pissing off a lot of people?
This is like a judicial abortion.
The court made a bad choice in the heat of a political passion.
Now that court regrets that choice and wants a second choice.
Near as I can figure from the 9th’s own rules:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/general_orders/General%20Orders%20Final%20Sept%207%202016.pdf
the 9th is largest - 44 judges of which 19 are seniors.
a call for en banc still requires a vote be taken by the judges (except seniors) to take the case.
en banc means a hearing by more than 3 judges. Senior judges are excluded from en banc unless they were one of the original three. Then they have to petion to be on he en bank roster.
Historically, en banc in the 9th is anywhere from 9 to 11 judges.
It usually includes the 3 original judges.
Should be interesting.