!!!
Denied!
Thu, 2017-02-09 19:12
#1
Denied!
Thu, 2017-02-09 19:13
#2
Bravo!
9th Circuit rules against reinstating travel ban
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/ind...
Thu, 2017-02-09 19:15
#3
This is a ompete and total repudiation of the Trump Administration's legal position.
Trump has already tweeted his expected response
Thu, 2017-02-09 20:01
#4
Thu, 2017-02-09 20:13
#5
It's always a good thing when the judicial branch is truly separate from the excecutive (and even the legislative) branch.
Thu, 2017-02-09 20:21
#6
montrealer58
May the Constitution continue to survive...
Thu, 2017-02-09 21:47
#7
Timebandit
This is such great news! Now let's settle in to watch it he tantrum.
Thu, 2017-02-09 21:52
#8
Such a great cartoon bekayne it should on the front page of every paper tomorrow
Thu, 2017-02-09 21:56
#9
There is absolutely no question the out of touch fat cats in Washington needed a shakeup but having a Trump for President is really overdoing it
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/09/politics/blumenth...
Thu, 2017-02-09 22:18
#10
Apparently the judges felt that the President was subject to the Constitution:
"Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all."...: "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."
They added: "Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution."
One thing i know for sure is that judges don't like it when someone says their decisions are 'political'. Even very right-wing judges don't like it.
It's pretty clear the Trump administration will have to change their argument from 'you can't review an executive order' to some other argument.
In the meantime, can Trump avoid his usual tantrum when he doesn't get his way. I suspect not.
Thu, 2017-02-09 22:53
#11
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/read-the-9th-circuits-o...
Nice. They cited other cases where the court ruled on executive orders, including the declaration regarding enemy combattants in Afghanistan,the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII, and the denial of passports to members of the Communist party, just to establish that while they owe some deference to the president, they are well within their authority.
(page 17)
Thu, 2017-02-09 23:06
#12
bagkitty
The only downside to the decision is that is going to reduce pressure on the Trudeau government to get rid of the Canada_U.S. Safe Third Country agreement. My inner pessimist is thinking there will not be movement until we get a picture of a child frozen in the snow south of Emerson MB to match the one of the drowned child on the beach.
Thu, 2017-02-09 23:38
#13
Timebandit
That's what scares the shit out of me, too, bagkitty. And apparently quite a number of residents of Emerson. It's not like this is going to dissuade people entirely - the point has been made, hasn't it?
Fri, 2017-02-10 02:28
#14
The man who forecast Trump
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2...
Fri, 2017-02-10 06:01
#15
The man who forecast Trumphttps://www.google.ca/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2...
This echoes the debate that's been going on since the election regarding identity politics versus class politics. Raised by Sanders. There's a lot right with Rorty's theory, but he vastly oversimplifies his cultural left.
Fri, 2017-02-10 07:09
#16
Doesn't the 9th Circuit get overturned like 80% of the time?
Fri, 2017-02-10 07:24
#17
Doesn't the 9th Circuit get overturned like 80% of the time?
When it's a 5-4 conservative court. Right now it's 4-4. It takes 5 to overturn the injunction.
Fri, 2017-02-10 07:44
#18
The only downside to the decision is that is going to reduce pressure on the Trudeau government to get rid of the Canada_U.S. Safe Third Country agreement. My inner pessimist is thinking there will not be movement until we get a picture of a child frozen in the snow south of Emerson MB to match the one of the drowned child on the beach.
Not just Emerson, and I fear there may yet be a tragedy. There are transport trucks arriving in Toronto in the middle of the night with refugees from Africa hidden in the back, subsequently dumped in the downtown core or in the parks. There's been a case that has sparked outrage here, where a young African woman and her 18 month old son were abandonned in a park, and she held her hands over her child's face to protect him from minus 15. They didn't have winter clothing. She may lose some fingers. Physicians who have been treating these refugees have been raising awareness of the necessity for ending the Canada-US Safe Third Country agreement.
Warning: nasty frostbite images at the link.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/refugee-paul-caulford-doctor-help-...
In the last month alone, he's treated almost 50 people who don't have insurance or OHIP and can't afford private care due to their status — something he said has to change....
He's also written to Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, to change the Safe Third Country Agreement which was implemented in 2004.
...
"The journeys are as far away as Texas, Georgia and Florida — they're dressed in windbreakers," he said. Many of his patients have told him they left the U.S. because they were told they would be sent back to where they came from.
Bastards.
Fri, 2017-02-10 09:45
#19
This (the refugee situation) is sickening.
But I have been looking in vain for a good analysis somewhere that explains what's happening. My questions:
1. How long have these refugees been in the U.S. - i.e. are we talking a few weeks, months, years?
2. Do they have "refugee" status in the U.S., or resident, or whatever U.S. law provides (I don't know their law).
3. Which countries are they from - the specific list Trump is trying to ban? Mainly African countries?
4. This from Sineed's link: "Many of his patients have told him they left the U.S. because they were told they would be sent back to where they came from." Who is telling them this??
5. When exactly did this influx begin? I imagine it started with the "ban", but did it? Can't tell from skimpy MSM articles.
Should we (or did we already) start a thread just on this issue - not just an appendage of Trump's ban?
Fri, 2017-02-10 10:25
#20
Timebandit
If I recall what I've read correctly, the numbers increased significantly just after Trump's election and have been rising rapidly.
Fri, 2017-02-10 12:01
#21
Trump's "so called judge" tweet rankled enough judges that he cannot rely on even his Conservative ones. Conservative judges may want a tiny bit of respect from their peers and to get that it may be easier to surprise Trump by not giving all he asks.
These may be dinosaurs but they are not seals.
Fri, 2017-02-10 12:46
#22
Lest we forget..
The seven countries that are part of Trump's refugee ban are the same ones Wesley Clark said the US planned to destroy.
Fri, 2017-02-10 12:57
#23
Doesn't the 9th Circuit get overturned like 80% of the time?
What does the reversal rate of a particular court mean?
Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals
When the subject of Supreme Court reversal rates arises, two common perceptions usually come to mind. First, the Ninth Circuit is the “rogue circuit.” Second, the Supreme Court only takes cases that it intends to reverse....Each year the federal courts of appeals collectively terminate an average of 60,467 cases... However, the Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year...which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the federal courts of appeals.
...Figure 15...compares the Supreme Court’s rate of review for each of the courts of appeals over the last 10 years. The highest rate of review is for the District of Columbia, a mere 0.235%. The number of cases that the Supreme Court reversed as compared to the total number of appeals terminated presents an even lower percentage. Any reversal rate below 1% can hardly be considered high.
...For the purpose of comparing one court’s “performance” against another’s, it makes more sense to compare reversal rate calculated as the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed.
... Interestingly, this comparison of reversal rates reveals that the Federal Circuit has the highest reversal rate at about 83.33%, and the Ninth Circuit has the second highest reversal rate at 80%. The Seventh Circuit has the lowest reversal rate at 55.26%. The median reversal rate is 68.29%.
What this shows is that, to begin with, the reversal rate for the Ninth Court is not that far off the median.What it doesn't show is that the 'terminations' - cases that are not appealed - for the Ninth court are higher than for any other circuit Court.
The real numbers or the court are these (figures for 2008)
Number of cases dealt with by the Ninth Circuit.......................12,373
Number of Ninth Circuit cases overturned by Supreme Court......16
The trap you fell into, Paladin, is not considering that the Supreme Court doesn't deal with every case dealt with by the Circuit courts. As is shown, they actually deal with only a tiny percentage.
So the real rate of reversal for Ninth Circuit court decisions is roughly one-tenth of one percent.
Fri, 2017-02-10 15:35
#24
These stats miss the crucial one -- how many cases are appealed. Then we would know what the success rate is for decisions that are appealed.
Fri, 2017-02-10 18:16
#25
Trump administration not appealing to Supreme Court. May issue a new executive order.
Fri, 2017-02-10 20:19
#26
It has been said that the real power of a Supreme Court Justice is not in deciding cases, but in deciding which cases are to be heard. This is of course because Supreme Court Justices are most interested in hearing cases that they could possibly reverse: those with which they already agree are effectively upheld if the Supreme Court choses not to hear them. That geneally explains the high reversal rate (about 70%) of all cases.
While I have not seen statistics broken down by the different Federal and State Courts, - on average the Supreme Court hears about 1% of all cases for which a litigant has filed a "writ of certiorari" - the request to be heard.
This 1% average actually comprises two quite different groups of cases: those that are petitions paid for by the litigants (usually organizations, corporations, etc) and those that are "on behalf of paupers" (honest, that is the language) - who are usually incarcerated individuals appealing their convictions. Stats show that one in twenty-five of the paid cases get heard by the Supreme Court; one in a thousand of the paupers petitions.
Fri, 2017-02-10 20:25
#27
These stats miss the crucial one -- how many cases are appealed. Then we would know what the success rate is for decisions that are appealed.
Well, there are some stats on that, although not broken down by specfic court, but assuming a rough similarity for each court:
Florida Bar Journal: What are my chances?
The U.S. Supreme Court: Odds of Securing Review and What Happens in the Cases That Make the CutAfter losing on appeal, clients may express an interest in seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. This Court has particularly detailed statistics that are readily available to the public, which may help guide such a decision. Needless to say, the odds are long.
Every November, the Harvard Law Review publishes detailed statistics from the Supreme Court’s prior term. For its term beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court received 7,868 petitions for review, and granted 90 or 1.1 percent of them...
Using the figures we already have for 2008, in which the Supreme Court reviewed a total of 18 Ninth Circuit court decisions, that means the Supreme Court rec'd roughly 1640 requests for review. With 16 of those 1640 being overturned, that means an overturn rate of roughly 1%.
But that number, small as it is, is hardly crucial. The most important number is the vast number of cases in which the appellants did not request review of their cases simply because they didn't think they had a chance of, first, being accepted for review, and secondly, having the decision overturned even if it was accepted.
So all the rumours of the Ninth Circuit as being some 'rogue' or 'liberal' court is just another of those alternative facts for which the Trump administration is becoming justifiably famous (or is that infamous?).
Fri, 2017-02-10 22:29
#28
These stats miss the crucial one -- how many cases are appealed. Then we would know what the success rate is for decisions that are appealed.
Well, there are some stats on that, although not broken down by specfic court, but assuming a rough similarity for each court:
Florida Bar Journal: What are my chances?
The U.S. Supreme Court: Odds of Securing Review and What Happens in the Cases That Make the CutAfter losing on appeal, clients may express an interest in seeking U.S. Supreme Court review. This Court has particularly detailed statistics that are readily available to the public, which may help guide such a decision. Needless to say, the odds are long.
Every November, the Harvard Law Review publishes detailed statistics from the Supreme Court’s prior term. For its term beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court received 7,868 petitions for review, and granted 90 or 1.1 percent of them...
Using the figures we already have for 2008, in which the Supreme Court reviewed a total of 18 Ninth Circuit court decisions, that means the Supreme Court rec'd roughly 1640 requests for review. With 16 of those 1640 being overturned, that means an overturn rate of roughly 1%.
But that number, small as it is, is hardly crucial. The most important number is the vast number of cases in which the appellants did not request review of their cases simply because they didn't think they had a chance of, first, being accepted for review, and secondly, having the decision overturned even if it was accepted.
So all the rumours of the Ninth Circuit as being some 'rogue' or 'liberal' court is just another of those alternative facts for which the Trump administration is becoming justifiably famous (or is that infamous?).
Thanks for this -- very helpful
Fri, 2017-02-10 23:55
#29
Trump administration not appealing to Supreme Court. May issue a new executive order.
I think they realized they weren't going to get any satisfaction from the Supreme Court. Their defence of 'executive orders are not reviewable by the judiciary' was going to fail, and they knew it. After all, what is the definition of a dictator if not someone who can 'decree' without regard for the law?
The job is going to be a lot tougher now, because the issue of religious discrimination is on the table in a way it wasn't before. I suspect the Supreme Court, and other justices, may look a bit askance at a new order when it's plain the administration is trying to write a law that discriminates based on religion.
I've heard some chatter about the Congress giving the President the right to make these sorts of orders. The congress may be able to hand over some of their authority to the president, but the Congress and the President are still beholden to the Constitution. The Congress can no more make an unconstitutional law than the President can.
I'll just add a word about the supposed 'liberal' and 'conservative' justices. All judges are from the most conservative sections of society. There are no 'commies' on the bench. 'Liberal' and 'conservative' in reference to the judiciary are very relative terms. Back in the day in Canada, you couldn't even become a lawyer if you were a member of the Communist Party. Harry Rankin had to lie to become a lawyer. Of course, even if you did become a lawyer, chances of being appointed to the bench were non-existent for anyone with a leftist political past.
And, as sherpa-finn noted above, the only decisions the Supreme Court reviews are those which they already think they may overturn. There is no point in them reviewing a decision they fully agree with.
Sun, 2017-02-12 11:48
#30
The White House learns from Paladin1 how to argue:
'judicial usurpation of power'
A U.S. White House official launched a blistering attack on the federal appeals court that blocked President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration on Sunday, calling its ruling a "judicial usurpation of power."...The judge's suspension was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday.
Miller, appearing on several television news shows, criticized the court and its ruling.
"The Ninth Circuit has a long history of being overturned and the Ninth Circuit has a long history of overreaching," he said on the Fox news show. "This is a judicial usurpation of power."
We've seen what that 'long history of being overturned really means. It means nothing. I find it interesting that someone on a progressive board would try to pass off the same argument as the White House, when even a small amount of research shows the argument to be completely ridiculous.
Sun, 2017-02-12 12:13
#31
If it has such a long history of being overturned, why didn't they appeal? Answer: because they knew they wouldn't win.
Sun, 2017-02-12 18:07
#32
The trap you fell into, Paladin, is not considering that the Supreme Court doesn't deal with every case dealt with by the Circuit courts. As is shown, they actually deal with only a tiny percentage.
I'm no Admiral Ackbar, thanks for setting me straight.
I find it interesting that someone on a progressive board would try to pass off the same argument as the White House, when even a small amount of research shows the argument to be completely ridiculous.
I'm thinking Republican plant who makes money for every troll attempt. Let's get em! ;)
Sun, 2017-02-12 18:26
#33
I'm thinking Republican plant who makes money for every troll attempt. Let's get em! ;)
Nah, you're just an obnoxious jerk, who gets some lulz out of poking the libtards.
Sun, 2017-02-12 18:36
#34
Oh we're talking about me! Well I've been called racist, mysognist, nazi, brown shirt (I think) and a host of other conservity names here, I'll add obnoxious jerk to the nominal roll ;)
I've never got lulz here though. I voted Liberal in the last election, if there's any poking to be done I'd like to poke myself.
Sun, 2017-02-12 20:22
#35
What is Trump's Master Plan?
Da Nada
That's correct. He doesn't have one
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/02/trackin...
Sun, 2017-02-12 20:27
#36
Not gonna happen
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-impeachment-bets-234931
Sun, 2017-02-12 20:28
#37
!!!
Sun, 2017-02-12 20:33
#38