Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Isn't that how all federal courts work in theory?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
POTUS 45.08: Suckers
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Isn't that how all federal courts work in theory?
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
Meh. The only reason we're hearing about it, is because SCROTUS doesn't like the decisions they've been making on some of his edicts. This is like FDR trying to pack the Supremes when some of his New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional.
Meh. The only reason we're hearing about it, is because SCROTUS doesn't like the decisions they've been making on some of his edicts. This is like FDR trying to pack the Supremes when some of his New Deal programs were declared unconstitutional.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
I'm not following-- You have a panel of 3 judges hear cases. In cases deemed particularly important or controversial the courts can meet en banc. In that circumstance in all districts except the 9th all the judges are empaneled to decide the case because all other districts have less than 15 judges. In the 9th only 11 of the 29 appointed judges are empaneled to decide the cases, 18 have no say in the matter.
I'm not following-- You have a panel of 3 judges hear cases. In cases deemed particularly important or controversial the courts can meet en banc. In that circumstance in all districts except the 9th all the judges are empaneled to decide the case because all other districts have less than 15 judges. In the 9th only 11 of the 29 appointed judges are empaneled to decide the cases, 18 have no say in the matter.
Last edited:
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
Oh, I agree completely. I was just getting at the fact that a)it has seemed like it should be split for some time and b) that there likely could be some support found in congress to do so.
The bill I linked to is from 1993 and was submitted by an Oregon Dem. (There have been others.) Trump might want to try it for political reasons, Dems would oppose it for political reasons, but if they did it, it would probably be good for entirely different non-political reasons. It's probably going nowhere though.
Oh, I agree completely. I was just getting at the fact that a)it has seemed like it should be split for some time and b) that there likely could be some support found in congress to do so.
The bill I linked to is from 1993 and was submitted by an Oregon Dem. (There have been others.) Trump might want to try it for political reasons, Dems would oppose it for political reasons, but if they did it, it would probably be good for entirely different non-political reasons. It's probably going nowhere though.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
I know how it works, but it is not unusual for them not have everyone hear the case I thought. I am pretty sure the Ninth isnt the only place that happens. (though obviously not with that large of numbers)
I know how it works, but it is not unusual for them not have everyone hear the case I thought. I am pretty sure the Ninth isnt the only place that happens. (though obviously not with that large of numbers)
Last edited:
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
ScoobyDoo
NPC
rufus
rock and roller
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
And yet, it's ok for Kush and Flynnie to lie about meetings with agents of foreign governments on their national security disclosures for top posts in the government.
We really are through the Looking Glass.
And yet, it's ok for Kush and Flynnie to lie about meetings with agents of foreign governments on their national security disclosures for top posts in the government.
We really are through the Looking Glass.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
Yeah...I mean they are skipping the slippery slope altogether and just going to the worst possible outcome
Yeah...I mean they are skipping the slippery slope altogether and just going to the worst possible outcome
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
The feds, during the Obama administration, indicted this woman for this trivial lie in 2013. In 2014 they convicted her, using the standard now being mocked by the SCOTUS. The Obama administration argued against her in her appeal to the 6th Circuit in 2015. I know, false equivalency, amiright?
The feds, during the Obama administration, indicted this woman for this trivial lie in 2013. In 2014 they convicted her, using the standard now being mocked by the SCOTUS. The Obama administration argued against her in her appeal to the 6th Circuit in 2015. I know, false equivalency, amiright?
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
First, en banc is rare, but it's important. I had to look it up, but yes, it's true the 5th actually now has 17 judges so they also can and do use less then the full number. The rest all use all judges in all en banc hearings. There's no such thing as partial panels otherwise. There's a thing called a mini-en banc, but that is just when a decision is circulated among all judges and if there's no objection, it's published.
The way it works in the 9th is the Chief Justice plus 10 other judges randomly drawn. There's 7 Bush appointees, 1 Reagan, the rest are all Carter, Clinton, and Obama. So for example a major decision might be altered by a random pick putting a 6 Bush appointees on an 11 judge panel. Or to be fair, 6 Obama appointees. It's up to chance. That and having a super majority sit out is an odd way to operate to me.
First, en banc is rare, but it's important. I had to look it up, but yes, it's true the 5th actually now has 17 judges so they also can and do use less then the full number. The rest all use all judges in all en banc hearings. There's no such thing as partial panels otherwise. There's a thing called a mini-en banc, but that is just when a decision is circulated among all judges and if there's no objection, it's published.
The way it works in the 9th is the Chief Justice plus 10 other judges randomly drawn. There's 7 Bush appointees, 1 Reagan, the rest are all Carter, Clinton, and Obama. So for example a major decision might be altered by a random pick putting a 6 Bush appointees on an 11 judge panel. Or to be fair, 6 Obama appointees. It's up to chance. That and having a super majority sit out is an odd way to operate to me.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
What false equivalence? Obama was well known as the "Deporter" in chief. He deported more people than anyone. What's interesting about Obama's immigration record was how he was vilified by the right over and over again despite the massive deportations he did. The question is the standard that is used. I think the Obama administration was wrong in this case if they in fact were directly involved. The Justice Dept. evidently disagrees. Glad to see that the Supreme Court may fall on my side.
If anyone wants the background on the case it's here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-lies-****ed-lies-citizenship/
What false equivalence? Obama was well known as the "Deporter" in chief. He deported more people than anyone. What's interesting about Obama's immigration record was how he was vilified by the right over and over again despite the massive deportations he did. The question is the standard that is used. I think the Obama administration was wrong in this case if they in fact were directly involved. The Justice Dept. evidently disagrees. Glad to see that the Supreme Court may fall on my side.
If anyone wants the background on the case it's here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-preview-lies-****ed-lies-citizenship/
unofan
Well-known member
He's saying the prosecution started under the Obama administration (correct), therefore it's wrong to blame Trump for what his attorney is now arguing (incorrect).
If you read the entire transcript, the justices have no sympathy for this particular defendant. She claimed refugee status because her husband avoided military service, when in fact he had served and committed atrocities. There's a strong argument that even on remand, she'll still lose because her lie sure as hell was material.
Where Trump deserves to get mocked is that his administration picked the attorney to argue this, as it doesn't look like he was involved until after cert was granted. Looking briefly at his bio, he's a career prosecutor who is going to push for everything he can get, and this was his first oral argument before the Court. Either he came woefully unprepared, or maybe they knew this was a losing one so he might as well take his knocks now.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
I don't consider her lie trivial. Her husband was a war criminal.
What is ridiculous that is the argument that any lie, no matter how trivial, is grounds for revoking citizenship. Like saying you have not committed any crimes when you may have driven over the speed limit without getting a ticket...
I don't consider her lie trivial. Her husband was a war criminal.
What is ridiculous that is the argument that any lie, no matter how trivial, is grounds for revoking citizenship. Like saying you have not committed any crimes when you may have driven over the speed limit without getting a ticket...
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
I should have been more clear with my snark. The "Huh?" was for the specious reasoning bolded above.
I should have been more clear with my snark. The "Huh?" was for the specious reasoning bolded above.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: POTUS 45.08: Suckers
Actually, this does raise a good question:
Where do you draw that line (today) and who draws it? It kind of goes back to your "all red shirts are banned" analogy when we were discussing executive orders. What constitutes a red shirt? Or in this case, what constitutes a material lie? Is it laid out in law? If not does that mean the POTUS can unilaterally lay that out?
Actually, this does raise a good question:
Where do you draw that line (today) and who draws it? It kind of goes back to your "all red shirts are banned" analogy when we were discussing executive orders. What constitutes a red shirt? Or in this case, what constitutes a material lie? Is it laid out in law? If not does that mean the POTUS can unilaterally lay that out?
- Status