Didn't even have to go to SCOTUS

 

Too late, Judge.  Too late.

He hated the 9th Circuit - he fixed it

When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.

In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.

Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

[...]

The 9th Circuit court has been dominated by Democratic appointees for decades. In 1978, a federal law created 10 new judgeships on the court, allowing President Carter to fill them all.

[...]

To be sure, some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues. But the rapid influx of so many judges — most without judicial experience — has put strains upon the court and stirred criticism among judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

“Ten new people at once sends a shock wave through the system,” a 9th Circuit judge said.

[...]

The biggest change will come in controversial cases that test the constitutionality of laws and the legal ability of presidents to establish contentious new rules. The 9th Circuit is weighing challenges to Trump on a wide array of issues, from immigration to reproductive rights, and the rightward tilt is likely to make it easier for the president to prevail.

[...]

Only two of the 9th Circuit appointees have prior judicial experience — Bridget S. Bade and Danielle Hunsaker. They also are the only women among the court’s new judges.

  LA Times

He put seven people on the country's largest appeals circuit who have no prior judicial experience. And one of them, Lawrence VanDyke was rated "not qualified" by the ABA.

Oh well, they don't need experience or qualification. They just have to know how Trump wants them to rule.

Judge Ryan D. Nelson rattled other members of the court when he suggested during a hearing in August that the 9th Circuit remove a respected San Francisco district judge, Edward M. Chen, from a case. The 9th Circuit rarely takes cases away from district judges and only in extreme situations.

Chen, a former ACLU lawyer, was serving as a federal magistrate when Obama elevated him to the district court. Nelson complained about him during a hearing on a case in which Chen imposed an injunction on a Trump plan to take away protected status from many immigrants.

“You can reverse Ed Chen from time to time, but to suggest from the bench that are you are going to reassign” a case is “off the reservation,” one longtime 9th Circuit judge said. “Ed is an extremely well respected judge.”

Not by the orange one who counts.

In rating VanDyke unqualified for the job, the ABA wrote: “Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice, including procedural rules.” VanDyke cried during his confirmation hearing when attempting to rebut criticism that he might be unfair to the LGBTQ community.

It worked for Kavanaugh.

Will he change his tune about the 9th Circuit?

A United States federal appeals court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a victory in his effort to ban most transgender people from the military, ordering a lower court judge to reconsider her ruling against the policy, which the US Supreme Court later allowed to take effect.

The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a ruling by US District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle, which said the ban likely violated the constitutional rights of transgender recruits and service members.

While not ruling on the case's merits, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based appeals court said Pechman did not give the military's judgment enough weight, and ordered her to give it more deference.

  alJazeera

Which doesn't mean, I guess, that she has to rule any differently than she did originally.

Pechman was one of four federal judges who ruled against the administration on the transgender troop ban, saying it likely violated the US Constitution's equal protection guarantee.

[...]

In January, the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority, lifted lower court injunctions that blocked the ban on constitutional grounds from going into effect, while challenges to its legality continued in lower courts.

The Supreme Court did not address the legality of the Republican president's ban, which reversed a landmark 2016 policy of his Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Republicans are still packing the courts

With the help of Democrats.



...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

It's not been a good day for His Lardship

A sentencing memo in federal court claiming Himself committed a felony, and a denial of dictatorship.



That nasty old 9th Circuit again.

A very bad day in a very bad fortnight.

Probably not just sour grapes

Doubling down on Justice Roberts

No, he can't even let a national day of thanks and giving pass without being a dick on Twitter.

Sounds like what could have been a description of the Supreme Court after Kavanaugh's appointment.  That may not be such a sure thing now that he's decided to take on the Chief Justice, but who knows?  Maybe he's already certain that Roberts is actually in his pocket, too, and only felt the need to object to Trump's assessment of the 9th Circuit to defend his own position.



That's a laugh.

I don't expect Roberts to respond, and that will make His Lardship feel he's won the joust.

Politifact:

Broadly speaking, the 9th Circuit includes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and district and bankruptcy courts in 15 federal judicial districts (among them Hawaii, and districts in Washington, California).

We previously looked at the 9th Circuit’s record when Fox News’ Sean Hannity falsely claimed it was the most overturned in the country. 

The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent. 

The 9th Circuit’s reversal rate is higher than average, but it’s not the absolute highest among the circuit courts. That distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15. The 9th Circuit placed third. [ed: 2nd was the 11th at 85%; and the 3rd Circuit is at 78%]

Also, never forget the basic statistics issue of how you use the data...

"Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court," [Roy E.] Hofer wrote in his article published by the American Bar Association. "Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically."

In comparing courts’ "performance," it makes more sense to compare reversal rate in terms of the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, Hofer said. 

It’s possible that the sheer size of the 9th Circuit, as well as some of its procedures, cause it to produce more "outlier decisions," which are cases the Supreme Court always reverses, than other circuits — leading to a higher reversal rate, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt previously told us. 

And another thing from Hofer's 2010 article:  "The Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year. [...] So how did the Ninth Circuit get the reputation for being the “rogue circuit”? Well, “figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” "

Always, always be skeptical of what Old Lardass says.  Especially what he's repeating from Sean Hannity.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 5:00pm:  Like a dog with a bone.

His Lardship may be finding his limits

Now he's gonna piss off Chief Justice Roberts?

President Donald Trump leveled his latest criticism of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, slamming a federal judge's decision to temporarily block an executive order that would have changed US asylum policy.

[...]

"The 9th Circuit, we're going to have to look at that," Trump said, before adding that "every case" that goes through that circuit results in "an automatic loss" for his administration. "The 9th Circuit is very unfair."

[...]

Trump vowed that his administration will ultimately "win that case in the Supreme Court," referring to the executive order changing US asylum policy.

[...]

The Trump administration's solicitor general, Noel Francisco, has moved aggressively to ask the Supreme Court to bypass certain appeals courts, including the 9th Circuit, particularly given recent conservative gains on the Supreme Court.

  CNN

"We're going to have to look at that."  He's been involved in a push to split up the 9th Circuit for some time.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on Wednesday against Donald Trump's description of a judge who ruled against the president's new asylum policy as an "Obama judge".

It's the first time that the Republican-appointed leader of the federal judiciary has offered even a hint of criticism of Trump, who has previously blasted federal judges who ruled against him.

Responding to a query made by the Associated Press, Roberts said, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

Roberts added that on the day before Thanksgiving that an "independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for".

The White House had no immediate comment on Roberts's remarks.

  alJazeera

Maybe not, but Trump did.

The ruling Trump criticised that prompted Roberts's rebuke came from US District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco on Monday.

Tigar temporarily blocked the Trump administration from denying asylum to individuals who cross the US's border between official ports of entry.

[...]

After Tigar's ruling, Trump critcised the judge, calling him an "Obama judge" and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals itself a "disgrace".

“Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten. And then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday.

Of course, Trump is right, and that's why he's packing the courts as fast as he can. And that's why Brett Kavanaugh sits on the Supreme Court. He just wasn't supposed to say out loud that he can go to the Supreme Court to "win" any case that he loses in the Circuit courts.  Especially so soon after getting Kavanaugh installed.

Meanwhile, in the 2nd Circuit case where the government is trying to require a citizenship question on census data....






"Enough is enough."





Jesus.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



UPDATE 11/22 (Thanksgiving Day):  The asshat has decided to double down on Justice Roberts.