OT: Federal Judges

It's the trash in the White House that's the actual problem.

Mark Levin has some ideas about this.

Don't see that it is getting much traction yet. Mikek

Bad behavior should include citing a statute and ignoring parts of the language in that statute.

I was seeking a quantifiable way... 66%+ overturns should clean the liberal clock post haste. ...Jim Thompson

Do they get that many overturns?

How would Jim know? His database is the same as krw's - what he remembers from the little he reads.

Spit and BBQ >:-} ...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.

I wonder where Jim got that information, and Jim probably doesn't know either.

does suggest that Sean Hannity at Fox News might have been the source.

Jim neglects to take into account that overturn rate only apples to the decisions which are appealed - which is to say the decisions that appellants think might be worth appealing.

The right statistic would be the proportion of the total decisions which are over-turned.

"From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period."

In other words, one decision in some 662 gets reviewed by the Supreme Court, so perhaps one in a thousand gets reversed.

Jim's grasp of logic makes him a prime candidate for the spit and barbeque.

You're numbers are just spin.

"Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases revers ed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court. Conversely, i f the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed ove r the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increa ses dramatically. So, in the big picture, i.e., considering all of the appe als terminated by each circuit, reversal rates for all courts of appeals co uld be very low, if calculated by the former method, or very high, if calcu lated by the latter method."

The cause of action should be much simpler: failure to honor their oath to defend the Constitution, and protect it from enemies foreign and domestic.

For example, by statute and the Constitution, the president has plenary power with respect to limits he may impose on immigration.

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama exercised this power to place restrictions on immigration from Syria, for example. No one complained. Nor was this a problem:

"February 18, 2016

For Immediate Release DHS Press Office Contact: 202-282-8010

WASHINGTON?The Department of Homeland Security today announced tha t it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of LIBYA, SOMALIA, and YEMEN as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries. [...]

"Last month, the United States began implementing changes under the Act. T he three additional countries designated today join IRAN, IRAQ, SUDAN and SYRIA as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals. [...]

"The addition of these three countries is indicative of the Department? ??s continued focus on the threat of foreign fighters."

So, it was the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION who identified these selected countries as high-risk countries. Not Trump's alleged prejudices.

Yet the judge who stayed Trump's lawful order allowed statements Trump made as a candidate to be admitted in court as alleged evidence of the president's malign 'intent,' however, the president's intent is not a material fact to the statute, nor is the judiciary authorized to second- guess it.

But if we're to consider statements made by the president prior to his holding office as relevant evidence of the president's intent, perhaps we should apply the same standard to the judge, who, bizarrely, recently bellowed "Black lives matter!" in open court.

The judge, who is supposed to judge on the law, is acting as a partisan politician. But our society, in part, *depends* on an impartial judiciary to be *apolitical.*

The judge who stayed Trump's order should be removed. And Congress, grante d absolute power over managing the court system under the Constitution, shoul d eliminate the clownish 9th circuit.

Cheers, James Arthur

This is one of the things that scares me about the ongoing dash to abolish cash. All the time we have cash, we can buy whatever we want when we want. But in this glorious "cashless society" the elites are pushing, that will no longer be possible, because every single transaction we need to make has to be OK'd by an anonymous third party who might just decide to be nasty one day and reject the payments we're trying to make. In your scenario above, the financial institutions will literally have the power of life and death over us - yet they have proved time and time again that they are in no way worthy of that level of trust. Not remotely.

Correct, but to hear the howls of anguish from CNN and the like, you'd never know it.

It can get quite scary....

Recently trying to balance my checkbook against the bank statement I had an $8 dollar error.

Finally found it two months back, I had read an "8" as a "0".

Rather than adjust every entry I decided I'd just do an $8 deposit to correct the adding error.

I had to show photo ID to make an $8 CASH deposit.

That's just a wee bit ridiculous... if I were a drug dealer, wouldn't I be making larger deposits ?>:-} ...Jim Thompson

an-80-reversal-rate/

ange of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court. Conve rsely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases re versed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically. So, in the big picture, i.e., considering a ll of the appeals terminated by each circuit, reversal rates for all cour ts of appeals could be very low, if calculated by the former method, or v ery high, if calculated by the latter method."

Jim and a few others here don't seem to like seeing contrasting viewpoint s.

As a point of clarification - from the same page:

"What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the Supreme Court?s grant of certiorari tend to favor those cases that are li kely to be overturned. It?s a major selection bias, and as we?ll see, it gives a very distorted picture of what happens in the appellate court system."

In other words the few cases that are appealed are cases that the supreme court are likely to agree deserve to be overturned. Hardly surprising that lawyers don't like fighting cases they are most likely to loose unless they are trying to make a point.

It is all part of democracy - checks and balances. If no one (or everyone) is happy with the results then that is most likely the fairest

outcome.

John

I believe it was Dershowitz who made a case for Rhenquist committing perjury during his confirmation hearings...

Idiot. In Australia, electronic transactions worth less than $100 are OK'ed automatically - there's no reference back to any central authority, just a one-way message saying that the money has been spent. If processing power gets cheap enough, and communications costs low enough, this may change, bu t there are always going to be transactions where anonymity is going to be a requirement. You can start getting worried when cash is actually banned, but there's no sign of that yet.

in

The fact that electronic money transfer is a lot neater and quicker most of the time isn't going to be a justification for eliminating cash. You are i ndulging in an Orwellian fantasy, which is a bit strange since Orwell was a convinced socialist, if an equally convinced anti-communist.

Just as stock certificates have anti-counterfeiting features, the production of cash could be privatized.

It has been. Australia makes cash currency for multiple other countries, using its proprietary plastic note technology.

Clifford Heath.

hat it

The

el

?s

ions-visa-waiver-program

es

de

The list of countries didn't actually include any whose nationals had perpe trated a terrorist attack in the US, and excluded a bunch - with which Trum p has business dealings - whose nationals had. Saudi Arabia is the stand-ou t example.

The president's intent clearly wasn't to secure the safety of the USA but - equally obviously - to pander to his supporters. The people he was keeping out weren't any more likely to be detrimental to the interests of the Unit ed States than the people he wasn't bothering to keep out, and the court wo uld have to be blind not to notice.

ted

uld

Congress would be better occupied eliminating the clownish president. Havin g him certified as a lunatic would seem to be the obvious choice, but getti ng him impeached as a Russian agent would be more fun.

Kenneth Starr might not be the prosecutor of choice, but even if Putin has covered his tracks too well for a successful impeachment on those grounds, Ken Starr is clearly persistent enough to find some dirt, somewhere.

Bill Sloman, Sydney