Make it happen. Its too big, too slow, and too stupid.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/...entum.html

When California secedes, won't that take care of the problem?

It should be broken up.

It's perfectly rational/reasonable to do so.

Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

(02-09-2017 11:16 AM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  When California secedes, won't that take care of the problem?

I believe, They still cover Washington, Oregon, and I think Alaska and Hawaii.. so it'd still cover 3 very liberal states.

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

For reference:

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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.

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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?

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

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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."

They have a despicable 15 month backlog on decisions. They are failing to do their job. It will be rectified. Get over it.

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

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

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

(02-09-2017 03:04 PM)Kaplony 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:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

I have conceded it has been brought up before. But why right now? why literally just a day after it is hearing it's biggest case in recent memory?

(02-09-2017 03:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:04 PM)Kaplony 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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

I have conceded it has been brought up before. But why right now? why literally just a day after it is hearing it's biggest case in recent memory?

Because unlike the last eight years the adults re in charge of the government now.

You asked someone yesterday in another thread if they could read your mind....are you reading the mind of the people who are pushing this? Including people who have been pushing for a split of the 9th District for decades?

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

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

(02-09-2017 02:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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.

(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:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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

(02-09-2017 01:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Got to love these #OnePartyRule conservatives.

Love you too, sweetheart.

(02-09-2017 03:04 PM)Kaplony 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:  

(02-09-2017 02:24 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you lived in one of those states you would call it a good thing because the case load per circuit would be decreased.

That's all there really is to it.

Circuit decisions are not binding on one another so it would have no real impact on anything.

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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

Holy crap.

I was just going to ask that, near 80!!!% reversal?!?

haha. And they take well more than a year to get schit wrong 80% of the time? You'd think they could be that pathetic in an afternoon.

All one had to do, even a layman, was to listen to the questioning that went on during that phone session the other day. They're more community organizer "lawyer" than actual judges.

(02-09-2017 03:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:04 PM)Kaplony 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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

Holy crap.

I was just going to ask that, near 80!!!% reversal?!?

haha. And they take well more than a year to get schit wrong 80% of the time? You'd think they could be that pathetic in an afternoon.

All one had to do, even a layman, was to listen to the questioning that went on during that phone session the other day. They're more community organizer "lawyer" than actual judges.

Pretty sure that's more than enough reason to break it up. Add in its massive backlog and there is no valid argument, political or otherwise, to continue with the status quo. The only arguments against this are political. In this case 2 circuit corts would be better than one.

(02-09-2017 03:50 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(02-09-2017 03:04 PM)Kaplony 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."

It's been brought up before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...it/435567/

Quote:The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In theory, it acts as one unifying body of law for each and every corner of that land. But in practice, the Constitution can mean different things in different places. That’s because federal law divides the United States into 12 geographic districts, each with its own separate federal court of appeals, whose constitutional interpretations apply only within its own circuit.

And now, Arizona wants to switch circuits. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Jeff Flake, and Representative Matt Salmon announced a joint effort last week to sever their state from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing its heavy workload, high rate of reversal, and slow resolution of cases.

And it's obvious that with a 77% reversal rate that something needs to be done with the 9th District. Either it needs to be winnowed down to a more manageable level or it needs to be purged of the activist judges who keep trying to legislate from the bench and deviate from the Constitution in the overwhelming majority of their cases.

Holy crap.

I was just going to ask that, near 80!!!% reversal?!?

haha. And they take well more than a year to get schit wrong 80% of the time? You'd think they could be that pathetic in an afternoon.

All one had to do, even a layman, was to listen to the questioning that went on during that phone session the other day. They're more community organizer "lawyer" than actual judges.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/a...eckdam.pdf

read up on the details of that. it's a bit misleading despite being an accurate stat in itself.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/18/...20110718/2

"It's no secret that the 9th is heavily Democratic," he said of the bench where 27 judges were named by Democratic presidents and 18 by Republicans. "The Supreme Court has five justices with a conservative bent, so it's not surprising that value-laden rulings from the 9th Circuit often clash with the conservative majority of the Supreme Court."

Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Irvine law school dean, sees the focus on the 9th Circuit as a reflection of the region's diversity. Immigration issues from Arizona, capital inmates' habeas corpus petitions from California's teeming death row, environmental disputes and labor-management conflicts arise more often in a judicial region stretching from Montana to Alaska and Hawaii, he noted.

"Reversal rates have no meaning whatsoever," said Chemerinsky. "If the Supreme Court overrules the 9th Circuit, it doesn't mean that the 9th Circuit was wrong and the Supreme Court was right. It means the Supreme Court had the last word."

The Supreme Court typically reverses about 75% of the cases it reviews each year, having selected them because they raise important questions of law or to resolve the internal contradictions created when circuits come to different conclusions about the same legal question.