The Supreme Court reversed 79 percent of the 9th Circuit’s cases from 2010-2015.

 

Mathematically correct but misleading.

Mathematically correct but misleading.

 

Please explain...what is misleading.

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

Please explain...what is misleading.

 

How many cases does the 9th overturn annually ?

How many cases does the 9th overturn annually ?

 

Does it matter if they were wrong close to 80% of the time?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.