(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  If this was such a major issue then how come they the cons waited until now to do it?

Yall are delusional with this constant train of excuses.

It's been discussed for some time.

Congress amends rules and such in the judicial branch all of the time.

It isn't partisan.

Can you identify a real reason why this would be problem?

the fact that it is being brought up when said court is in the middle of one of the most politically charged cases in recent memory it clearly is partisan to bring this up now.

"if by all the time" you mean the creation of a new district happening only three times since the end of reconstruction then yes I guess you could say it happens "all the time."

You are putting words in my mouth.

I am talking civilly with you and it would be great if you would try to do the same.

What I said is they amend rules all the time. They do. The Rules of Civil Procedure and a plethora of other unseen things occurs every year. It is not partisan.

The fact that the Court is involved in a charged case right now is immaterial. It's immaterial because it makes no difference. Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another.

So, again, I'm asking you what exactly the problem is?

You seem to only be identifying the "cus my team didn't bring it up" which isn't a real reason.

they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

The very fact that a court can be seen as having any political bias is a disaster.

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:46 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's been discussed for some time.

Congress amends rules and such in the judicial branch all of the time.

It isn't partisan.

Can you identify a real reason why this would be problem?

the fact that it is being brought up when said court is in the middle of one of the most politically charged cases in recent memory it clearly is partisan to bring this up now.

"if by all the time" you mean the creation of a new district happening only three times since the end of reconstruction then yes I guess you could say it happens "all the time."

You are putting words in my mouth.

I am talking civilly with you and it would be great if you would try to do the same.

What I said is they amend rules all the time. They do. The Rules of Civil Procedure and a plethora of other unseen things occurs every year. It is not partisan.

The fact that the Court is involved in a charged case right now is immaterial. It's immaterial because it makes no difference. Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another.

So, again, I'm asking you what exactly the problem is?

You seem to only be identifying the "cus my team didn't bring it up" which isn't a real reason.

they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

(02-09-2017 04:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  The very fact that a court can be seen as having anything but a conservative bias is a disaster.

FTFY

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the fact that it is being brought up when said court is in the middle of one of the most politically charged cases in recent memory it clearly is partisan to bring this up now.

"if by all the time" you mean the creation of a new district happening only three times since the end of reconstruction then yes I guess you could say it happens "all the time."

You are putting words in my mouth.

I am talking civilly with you and it would be great if you would try to do the same.

What I said is they amend rules all the time. They do. The Rules of Civil Procedure and a plethora of other unseen things occurs every year. It is not partisan.

The fact that the Court is involved in a charged case right now is immaterial. It's immaterial because it makes no difference. Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another.

So, again, I'm asking you what exactly the problem is?

You seem to only be identifying the "cus my team didn't bring it up" which isn't a real reason.

they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

(02-09-2017 04:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:23 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You are putting words in my mouth.

I am talking civilly with you and it would be great if you would try to do the same.

What I said is they amend rules all the time. They do. The Rules of Civil Procedure and a plethora of other unseen things occurs every year. It is not partisan.

The fact that the Court is involved in a charged case right now is immaterial. It's immaterial because it makes no difference. Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another.

So, again, I'm asking you what exactly the problem is?

You seem to only be identifying the "cus my team didn't bring it up" which isn't a real reason.

they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

I'm pointing to the timing which is shady as f***

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  If this was such a major issue then how come they the cons waited until now to do it?

Conservatives have been wanting to break-up the 9th Circuit for a long time. I remember people taking about it 25 years ago. It can only happen when GOP has a free hand. Should've been done in the 2005-'06 frame but they blew it. Hopefully not this time.

(02-09-2017 04:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

I'm pointing to the timing which is shady as f***

John, even if they create another Circuit, it doesn't stop the left from "court shopping" to bring cases before it to get what they want - and that's the only reason you have issue with this.

I mean really, with 11 circuits, why should 1 have jurisdiction over fully 20% of the population? It's no wonder it takes forever to get decisions out of it.....not to mention 77% reversal. That indicates court overload - too many cases to handle.

Easy answer - split it up. No? Lefties can still court shop.

(02-09-2017 04:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they amend the rules. Not breakup the court. that's a massive difference. and yes the timing matters. the timing could not possibly have been any more shady.

#OnePartyRule

But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

I'm pointing to the timing which is shady as f***

The timing is due to the same reason manufacturing jobs are coming back. We now have someone in the oval office who gives a f*ck and isnt out playing 36 holes every day. So sh*t like this can actually get done now.

(02-09-2017 05:05 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  If this was such a major issue then how come they the cons waited until now to do it?

Conservatives have been wanting to break-up the 9th Circuit for a long time. I remember people taking about it 25 years ago. It can only happen when GOP has a free hand. Should've been done in the 2005-'06 frame but they blew it. Hopefully not this time.

didn't they have a republican majority back then? didn't they have one the day trump took office?

I mean FFS why did they wait until today? it is clearly linked to the EO case.

(02-09-2017 05:08 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  But what difference does it make you aren't identifying one?

Breaking up the Circuit makes no difference to anybody.

I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

I'm pointing to the timing which is shady as f***

John, even if they create another Circuit, it doesn't stop the left from "court shopping" to bring cases before it to get what they want - and that's the only reason you have issue with this.

I mean really, with 11 circuits, why should 1 have jurisdiction over fully 20% of the population? It's no wonder it takes forever to get decisions out of it.....not to mention 77% reversal. That indicates court overload - too many cases to handle.

Easy answer - split it up. No? Lefties can still court shop.

why did YOU only start caring about this until today?

(02-09-2017 05:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 05:08 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 04:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I can't believe you said that with a straight face.

You've yet to identify why it is a problem other than pointing at the political parties and crying foul.

The idea is simply to create a new circuit which will speed up the system.

It makes no difference, and I hate to have to repeat myself here, but Circuit decisions are NOT binding on one another. Do you know what that even means?

I'm pointing to the timing which is shady as f***

John, even if they create another Circuit, it doesn't stop the left from "court shopping" to bring cases before it to get what they want - and that's the only reason you have issue with this.

I mean really, with 11 circuits, why should 1 have jurisdiction over fully 20% of the population? It's no wonder it takes forever to get decisions out of it.....not to mention 77% reversal. That indicates court overload - too many cases to handle.

Easy answer - split it up. No? Lefties can still court shop.

why did YOU only start caring about this until today?

Because I didn't realize those poor souls in the Western part of the country were being so ill served by a court that obviously can't handle the load being placed on them. I feel bad for those Californians.

Honestly, I had no idea that that one district covered 20% of the population and it took an average of 15 months for a decision until today........... I mean really, does that make sense? Partisanship aside.

I guess my question would be why would this inherently help or hurt either side?

(02-09-2017 03:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  I was just going to ask that, near 80!!!% reversal?!?

At one point it was OVER 80% reversal (I want to say about 83%?). And they're so backlogged, because everyone who wants a leftist-decision tries to get their case put in that court system... because they know they're going to get a left-wing result. Which means every nutty case, every ambulance chaser, and every hardcore socialist tries for that court room.

As for the breakup of the 9th court.. I know Arizona had been asking it to be done for a while. I want to say (but not sure) that they wanted to do the same for the 8th as well for a while (I think Iowa and Missouri were pushing for it for a while)

As said, the problem is the "court shopping".. Why did this go to the 9th court. Why not the 4th or 3rd? Because the liberals who brought the cases, intentionally put it in the 9th court's ballpark.