SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Jun 4, 2019 6:20:21 GMT -8
I thought it was about time we have a thread covering what I believe to be one of the biggest and important aspects of holding the Site House, appointing Judges, not just the Supreme Court but the thousands of courts that make up this nation. We all know the ever important Supreme Court appointment is one the President can make that endures long after he is gone. Next would be the appointments to the Appellate Courts or the 12 circuit courts. Going into another election year in 2020 to me this is ultimately the most important issue as a voter. And if you look to date what Trump has done he has met my expectations of appointing judges that will uphold the Constitution. With that I thought I would start this thread with our own 9th Circuit, the most known ideological, (many call corrupt) left wing court in the nation. Look what President Trump has done in his short term so far, this far left out of balance court has been taking a beating by Trump. This lopsided brain trust of the left is inching towards true balance. I never thought I would see a day when a verdict out of this court represented "THE PEOPLE"! Trump is taking a hammer to the Ninth Circuit and with another term put a nail in it's coffin! President Trump Lands Sixth Judge on Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsCalifornia’s home-state Senators Feinstein and Harris voted against Collins’ nominationBy Katy Grimes, June 3, 2019 10:45 am californiaglobe.com/fr/president-trump-lands-sixth-judge-on-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals/"President Trump has successfully appointed six judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Prior to Trump taking office, the Ninth Circuit had 19 Democratic appointees, 6 Republican appointees, and four vacancies, and is the most overturned court of appeals in the country. In May, the U.S. Senate confirmed two Trump nominees, Kenneth Lee and Daniel Collins, the fifth and six appointed judges.
Kenneth Lee The U.S. Senate confirmed Collins’ nomination by a 53-46 vote on May 21, 2019. He received commission on May 22, 2019. California’s home-state Senators Dianne Feinstein (D) and Kamala Harris (D) voted against Collins’ nomination.
Daniel Collins Senators confirmed Kenneth Lee’s nomination on a party-line 52-45 vote, giving President Trump his 40th circuit judge since taking office.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the third nominee, Daniel Aaron Bress, May 22. If he is confirmed by the committee, President Trump will have appointed seven judges to the Ninth Circuit.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote an op ed about her objection: “Daniel Bress, was born in California but practices law in Washington, D.C., and lives in Virginia. In fact, since graduating from high school, Mr. Bress has only lived in California for one year and has been on the east coast for college, law school and the rest of his legal career.”
Daniel Bress “Currently the court is comprised of 16 judges appointed by Democratic presidents and 11 judges appointed by Republican presidents,” the Epoch Times reported. “If Trump successfully fills the two vacant seats, it would place the court at 16 Democratic appointed judges and 13 Republican appointed judges. This would be unprecedented for the California-based circuit court, which has included judges such as the late Stephen Reinhardt, often called the ‘liberal lion’ of the Ninth Circuit.”
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jun 4, 2019 8:06:20 GMT -8
Imagine what he'll accomplish with a second term. Trump 2020!
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 4, 2019 8:44:43 GMT -8
The most concerning aspect, and tragic really, is this further cements the divide along ideological lines, and provides an even greater incentive for political power.
I think judges should be, by definition, centrist.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Jun 4, 2019 9:23:43 GMT -8
The most concerning aspect, and tragic really, is this further cements the divide along ideological lines, and provides an even greater incentive for political power. I think judges should be, by definition, centrist. If centrist means simply following the law, rather than legislating from the bench, then I'm all for it. Much liberal policy has only been enacted through the judiciary, since it had no chance of getting enough popular support to pass through the various legislative avenues, including referendums and propositions. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 4, 2019 10:47:21 GMT -8
You're right about that. I'm not saying it isn't necessary. It's just disappointing that's where we are as a country.
I've got my business hat on, and know that political infighting is counter productive to the organization as a whole. "Victories" are shallow at best in this environment.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 4, 2019 15:09:56 GMT -8
This would be unprecedented for the California-based circuit court, which has included judges such as the late Stephen Reinhardt, often called the ‘liberal lion’ of the Ninth Circuit.”
She utilizes the term "liberal lion", which is open to debate. One could with as much accuracy employ the term "leftist pussy", but I suppose I'm just quibbling. The ninth circuit has always been an activist's playground. Whenever I'd be listening to the radio and they would mention the ninth circuit court I'd immediately think "Ah, Christ, now what?" It was the place to go if you had some novel theory you wanted to put into the law. It's helpful to balance that court out a little bit..............................Luca |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Jun 4, 2019 20:16:29 GMT -8
To be a fair & honest judge, one's political viewpoints should be a moot point. You don't have to agree ideologically with a law in order to determine how it applies to any case.
If you are legislating from the bench, you are a fraud as a judge. You had 1 job!!
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 4, 2019 21:28:57 GMT -8
This would be unprecedented for the California-based circuit court, which has included judges such as the late Stephen Reinhardt, often called the ‘liberal lion’ of the Ninth Circuit.”
She utilizes the term "liberal lion", which is open to debate. One could with as much accuracy employ the term "leftist pussy", but I suppose I'm just quibbling. The ninth circuit has always been an activist's playground. Whenever I'd be listening to the radio and they would mention the ninth circuit court I'd immediately think "Ah, Christ, now what?" It was the place to go if you had some novel theory you wanted to put into the law. It's helpful to balance that court out a little bit..............................Luca A "liberal lion" is an oxymoron. Much like a "jumbo shrimp", a "young Luca", or a "studly Friar". |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Jun 4, 2019 22:02:22 GMT -8
Or a Mater Dei “student-athlete.”
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Jun 4, 2019 22:59:21 GMT -8
Or a Mater Dei “student-athlete.” Ouch! It’s getting hot in here! |
|
|
|
Post by captaintrips on Jan 28, 2020 6:58:20 GMT -8
Ending judicial activism ? Which most Americans are sick to death of. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is the era of Big Judicial Activism over?It might just be. Supreme Court Justic Neil Gorsuch, in a ruling about denying green cards to migrants who come here to be "public charges," something that's plainly laid out in U.S. law as illegal, threw in a special warning to activist judges, all leftists, who have been beavering away to rule from the bench, warning them that he's tired of their shenanigans. - see link -The story here is that a new big lion has roared and all the little judicial activist rats out there who have been scurrying hard to block President Trump's bid to do what the voters asked of him, are now being read the Riot Act.
The problem Gorsuch stated is actually a huge issue, cutting to the right of whether the citizens have the right to elect the leaders they want. Seems any judge out in some wasted blue city has appropriated for himself the power to overrule the president on any spurious grounds whatsoever and knows that by the time the appeals get done, the presidency will be over. Time enough to elect a Democrat for that. Some of these creeps even know their spuriously reasoned rulings will be overturned but for them, knowing full well the idea is to game the system.
Those who lose out are the voters...the irony of the whole matter is that they elected President Trump to get rid of insane things like government by executive order, as in the case of DACA and assorted drilling bans. Obama, or any Democrat, is free to issue these essentially sweeping dictatorial edicts, but the judicial rattery says Trump is not free to get rid of them, correcting course on previous presidential overreach.
Here are fifteen such judicial activist bids to block Trump and rest assured the list is not comprehensive - see link -That's just fifteen such activist jackasses and rest assured there are more.
Gorsuch's move was sorely needed if the voters are ever going to be able to make choices based on democratic representation. It's a good thing for democracy, it restores the link between voter choices and voter results, allowing voters to be right and wrong, and ending a petty satrapy of petty leftwing judges who follow solely the activist agenda, allowing themselves to be the handmaidens of creatures such as George Soros and his vast NGO activist networks.
It forces judges to rule by what the law says, not what they want and can't persuade votes to get at the ballot box. It forces them to stay in their lane or else endure the disgrace of seeing their stupid rulings overruled. It snaps the judges back to their role and curbs the vast unelected administrative state that Brought Trump.
Gorsuch's stellar move is in the same constellation as the great legal mind of Antonin Scalia. It's fealty to the Constitution... www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/new_scala_rising_supreme_court_justice_neil_gorsuch_warns_judicial_activists_that_hes_coming_for_them_.html |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 6, 2020 11:53:27 GMT -8
This is why winning the White House (Trump over Clinton) was a must at any cost, yes MDDad even if we must endure a childish bully...... Question: Why was this not a 9-0 decision...? Supreme Court Narrowly Decides That Identity Theft by Illegal Aliens Is Actually a Crime
www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/03/03/792745/
 The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather for a formal group portrait to include the new Associate Justice, top row, far right, at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, Friday, Nov. 30, 2018.
Seated from left: Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr. Standing behind from left: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan and Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Immigration Roundup: Identity Theft Finally A Crime For Illegals
www.libertynation.com/immigration-roundup-identity-theft-finally-a-crime-for-illegals/
Affecting millions of Americans across the nation, identity theft is a growing crime with a new victim every two seconds. This relates mostly to online and cyber crimes.
But what about when illegal immigrants steal a U.S. citizen’s Social Security number to provide work verification? Although federal law seems to prohibit states from prosecuting undocumented aliens for using false information on employment forms, the Supreme Court has just ruled against that, allowing states to prosecute individuals who commit such identity theft.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Mar 6, 2020 13:05:10 GMT -8
So...
Why wasn’t that a 9-0 decision? Why would four Supreme Court Justices intend to make identity theft NOT be a crime?
Maybe because SCOTUS justices, who claim to be apolitical aren’t, and didn’t want to hand Trump a victory?
Shameful partisanship.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Mar 6, 2020 13:11:50 GMT -8
This decision is so inherently obvious that a 5–4 SC vote doesn't sound right. There has to have been at least some semblance of legal reasoning as to why it’s not a given that aliens can be tried for such a crime. I read the article and it doesn't give any reason why four justices voted against it. I suspect the link is a fairly conservative news outlet that doesn't put a high priority on presenting both sides of an argument.
.....But at the same time it worries me that this may start a trend. The next thing you know they'll pass a law making it illegal to send classified documents from your private server……………………….Luca
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Mar 6, 2020 16:16:12 GMT -8
The Supreme Court was the last bastion of "IMPARTIALITY". When looking at the past few years that is more and more no longer remotely true. I can not believe 1, not 1 liberal leaning Justice could see the other 5 as being correct in upholding right vs wrong.
|
|
