Clyde Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 The Supreme Court reversed 79 percent of the 9th Circuit’s cases from 2010-2015. Mathematically correct but misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumper_Dad Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Mathematically correct but misleading. Please explain...what is misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumper_Dad Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 That is not as far out of line with other Circuits as it may look standing alone. In fact, 3 of those years the 9th was not the most overturned circuit. So 3 out of 6 years they weren't the worst :dancingpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Please explain...what is misleading. How many cases does the 9th overturn annually ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumper_Dad Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 How many cases does the 9th overturn annually ? Does it matter if they were wrong close to 80% of the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaseballIsLife Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 It is their job to make sure the law is followed, not wether the agree with it or not. You do realize that the judicial branch does have the power to decide if a law is unconstitutional correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcpapa Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 You do realize that the judicial branch does have the power to decide if a law is unconstitutional correct? Kinda the backbone of judicial responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt278 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 You do realize that the judicial branch does have the power to decide if a law is unconstitutional correct? Absolutely. That is the job of the SCOTUS, not one lone liberal judge in San Francisco with a history of having an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt278 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Kinda the backbone of judicial responsibility. The backbone of judicial responsibility is to see the laws passed by the legislature, be it state or federal, are upheld and applied equally. It is not their job to legislate from the bench. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Does it matter if they were wrong close to 80% of the time? Let's be clear. Let's say the 9th overturns 1000 cases a year. Are you saying they are wrong on 800 of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getslow Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Absolutely. That is the job of the SCOTUS, not one lone liberal judge in San Francisco with a history of having an agenda. Which is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. U.S. and the restrictions on the spending power in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius were exactly what the judge used to make this decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt278 Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Which is exactly what happened. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the Tenth Amendment in Printz v. U.S. and the restrictions on the spending power in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius were exactly what the judge used to make this decision. Why don't you check out this judges history? He's a liberal hack that was awarded his place on the bench for his fundraising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bipsic Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 The backbone of judicial responsibility is to see the laws passed by the legislature, be it state or federal, are upheld and applied equally. It is not their job to legislate from the bench. First, Article Three of the Constitution explicitly gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional issues and federal laws, among other things. Second, the issue doesn't even involve a law passed by the legislature. It was an Executive Order, by your definition we have a President legislating from the White House. Third, the Judicial branch in a co-equal part of our government. Third, how do you propose a court uphold and apply a law if it finds it unconstitutional? Fourth, if you actually feel that courts shouldn't have this role, what do we do with laws that counter the constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatz Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 Why don't you check out this judges history? He's a liberal hack that was awarded his place on the bench for his fundraising. So case precedent doesn't matter? Only a person's perceived background? It seems to me that when Getslow argues with actual law (what the judges are supposed to do) you have now turned to "opinion" of the person rather than the judgement of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bballfamily Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 What should be looked at is that these cities are protecting law breakers, some who have committed kidnapping, rape and murder. Even after they were in police custody and then released. They also broke the law entering the USA. Protecting American citizens is the number one duty of government at all levels. These cities are failing a basic responsibility to protect their citizens, instead protecting criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts