Trump Plans to Attack Judiciary

Stacko

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
10,837
Trump 'absolutely' looking at breaking up 9th Circuit

President Trump said Wednesday that he has "absolutely" considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have blocked two of his executive actions.

"Absolutely, I have," Trump said of considering 9th Circuit breakup proposals during a far-ranging interview with the Washington Examiner at the White House. "There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."

President Trump said Wednesday that he has "absolutely" considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have blocked two of his executive actions.
Click to expand...

Maybe he could just try not being a moronic racist. That would clear up his problems with the court and maintain an independent judiciary.
 
Tony Stark said:
Good luck getting 60 Senators to agree with that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the recent policy change mean he only needs a majority (eg: 50 + 1) ?

Also: mightn't they be distracted by his new war with a nuclear armed North Korea?
 
blutoski said:
Doesn't the recent policy change mean he only needs a majority (eg: 50 + 1) ?

Also: mightn't they be distracted by his new war with a nuclear armed North Korea?
Click to expand...

1. Waste senators’ time on bus stunt
2. …
3. Win senators over on breaking up the 9th circuit

I don't see that plan working.
 
Stacko said:
Maybe he could just try not being a moronic racist. That would clear up his problems with the court and maintain an independent judiciary.
Click to expand...

Lol
How utterly stupid!

The judiciary does not make their decisions based on the current president being falsely labeled a racist. they make their decisions on what their politics is.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
No, Mitch McConnell would have to nuke the filibuster on legislation and that hasn't happened nor is it likely to.
Click to expand...

Why not?

I ask this as somebody who spent a year reading, "No, Trump would have to win the majority of electoral votes and that hasn't happened nor is it likely to.
 
blutoski said:
Why not?

I ask this as somebody who spent a year reading, "No, Trump would have to win the majority of electoral votes and that hasn't happened nor is it likely to.
Click to expand...

One, he has already pledged not to. And two, they want to be able to use the filibuster next time Democrats have control.
 
Tony Stark said:
One, he has already pledged not to.
Click to expand...

Politicians make a lot of pledges not to do things.
This is a good way to generate a list of things that the politician will then turn around and do.



Tony Stark said:
And two, they want to be able to use the filibuster next time Democrats have control.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that also apply to filibusters for appointments? Yet that was easy to let go of.
 
blutoski said:
Politicians make a lot of pledges not to do things.
This is a good way to generate a list of things that the politician will then turn around and do.
Click to expand...

It he wanted to do it he would just go ahead and do so to make it easier for Trump to repeal Obamacare.

Wouldn't that also apply to filibusters for appointments? Yet that was easy to let go of.
Click to expand...

Democrats were the ones who got rid of it for most appointments.
 
I've been sick of the 9th Circuit since forever. It is too big and dumb and should be split up. I do not know how that can be done. My feeling on this has nothing to do with Trump.
 
As ever the topic of the thread is not one another and it is not about whether Trump is racist or not. Removed all the off-topic posts to AAH. Keep to the topic of this thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Stacko said:
Trump 'absolutely' looking at breaking up 9th Circuit
Click to expand...
I'm just curious... how exactly would breaking up the 9th circuit actually help him?

Ok, so he's complaining about people "shopping" for sympathetic/liberal judges in the 9th circuit, but if he breaks it up into a 9a and 9b circuit, those judges will probably still be sitting on the bench, and still be making rulings unfavorable to him. It doesn't seem like it would provide much benefit for those complaining about 'activist' judges.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm just curious... how exactly would breaking up the 9th circuit actually help him?

Ok, so he's complaining about people "shopping" for sympathetic/liberal judges in the 9th circuit, but if he breaks it up into a 9a and 9b circuit, those judges will probably still be sitting on the bench, and still be making rulings unfavorable to him. It doesn't seem like it would provide much benefit for those complaining about 'activist' judges.
Click to expand...

It would give his idiot supporters another thing to beat their chests about.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm just curious... how exactly would breaking up the 9th circuit actually help him?

Ok, so he's complaining about people "shopping" for sympathetic/liberal judges in the 9th circuit, but if he breaks it up into a 9a and 9b circuit, those judges will probably still be sitting on the bench, and still be making rulings unfavorable to him. It doesn't seem like it would provide much benefit for those complaining about 'activist' judges.
Click to expand...
Without doing any reading, I have the same questions.

In fact, wouldn't it give folks another circuit to shop in?

Or, does "breaking up" mean "getting rid of"? I mean, "breaking up" a fight doesn't generally mean creating two new fights (though it sometimes does).

I also wonder that if it does mean creating two (or more) new circuits, if the current one isn't officially disbanded, meaning that the judges wouldn't necessarily just be moved to the new circuits, but rather new appointments?
 
The 9th is already YUGE!

Really, it is massive and ought to be broken into 2-3 pieces. I think it has 29 judges, a "full panel of nine" isn't. It meets in 4 places. It was created in 1891, it might be time to do some shifting, things have changed in the last 125 years. It handles federal appeals for 62,000,000 people, 1/5 of the population instead of 1/9.

But I don't have a clue as to who runs that level of courts- Congress? The Pres appoints judges, maybe it is something Trump can do unilaterally.

Isn't the 9th everything west of the Rockies, including Samoa +? Easy enough to make 9-10-11 out of it.

From Wiki: "The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die."

So with the repubs holding all the reins, it ought to be doable. And who would be against it, except the "if Trump wants it, we don't" crowd.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
The 9th is already YUGE!

Really, it is massive and ought to be broken into 2-3 pieces. I think it has 29 judges, a "full panel of nine" isn't. It meets in 4 places. It was created in 1891, it might be time to do some shifting, things have changed in the last 125 years. It handles federal appeals for 62,000,000 people, 1/5 of the population instead of 1/9.

But I don't have a clue as to who runs that level of courts- Congress? The Pres appoints judges, maybe it is something Trump can do unilaterally.

Isn't the 9th everything west of the Rockies, including Samoa +? Easy enough to make 9-10-11 out of it.

From Wiki: "The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. Article III of the Constitution requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III federal judges are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate to serve until they resign, are impeached and convicted, retire, or die."

So with the repubs holding all the reins, it ought to be doable. And who would be against it, except the "if Trump wants it, we don't" crowd.
Click to expand...

Most legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate. Republicans only have 52.

The 9th is not going to be broken up.
 
I don't understand why they would want to, anyway. Certainly at least one of the new courts would maintain the same leftist-captured ideology, so nothing would really change.
 
logger said:
Lol
How utterly stupid!

The judiciary does not make their decisions based on the current president being falsely labeled a racist. they make their decisions on what their politics is.
Click to expand...

It is not falsely. Possibly you forgot the court cases he and daddy lost trying to keep Blacks out of their buildings a bit of time ago. His fans seem to have very short term memories I have noticed.

Of course, those I loathe I have long memories for. And good reasons. And, your last word above should be are - politics is a plural
 
Last edited:
Interesting how the Righties consistently accuse others of having been brainwashed. Since when does anyone on today's Right know what a brain is? How thoughts work? What it means to base anything on reality?
 
fuelair said:
It is not falsely. Possibly you forgot the court cases he and daddy lost trying to keep Blacks out of their buildings a bit of time ago. His fans seem to have very short term memories I have noticed.

Of course, those I loathe I have long memories for. And good reasons. And, your last word above should be are - politics is a plural
Click to expand...

By the by, just in case, it might be good to post instruction boxes at the top of each page rather than in the mix when they were posted. I say this in case either of the two posts I just made violated or hinted at violating same as they were posted directly on seeing the posts they were responding to which is how I work and I did not see the box until several posts after that.
 
In other words, I do not read an entire thread before posting anything in it - I respond as soon as I read a post I like or a post I do not like. Many threads are too long to do otherwise in!!!!!!
 
Beerina said:
I don't understand why they would want to, anyway. Certainly at least one of the new courts would maintain the same leftist-captured ideology, so nothing would really change.
Click to expand...

Presumably, the idea would be to break the court up into more sections and then add in a couple more...um..."appropriately minded" judges to each new section. So if you have 27 judges in the Circuit, you break it into 5 groups of 9.

Which means you get to appoint 18 new ones.

I'm pretty sure that is within the powers of the executive branch, even.
 
Well as he has kicked off his reelection campaign already doesn't that mean he is no longer qualified to nominate judges?
 
Beerina said:
I don't understand why they would want to, anyway. Certainly at least one of the new courts would maintain the same leftist-captured ideology, so nothing would really change.
Click to expand...

Things might change quite a bit actually. Remember that when an Court of Appeals makes a ruling that ruling effectively becomes the law of the land in the states within that Circuit unless and until the Supreme Court intervenes.

The Ninth Circuit is huge geographically, in population and in the number of cases it hears annually. The Tenth Circuit (Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico) could certainly take on some of its workload. But realistically what is needed is a complete redrawing of the circuit court map; does it make any sense that the First Circuit is made up of only Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Maybe back in 1891 (when the circuit courts were instituted) that worked in terms of population, but it doesn't anymore.
 
Segnosaur said:
I'm just curious... how exactly would breaking up the 9th circuit actually help him?

Ok, so he's complaining about people "shopping" for sympathetic/liberal judges in the 9th circuit, but if he breaks it up into a 9a and 9b circuit, those judges will probably still be sitting on the bench, and still be making rulings unfavorable to him. It doesn't seem like it would provide much benefit for those complaining about 'activist' judges.
Click to expand...

This is the "thing" right here.
Break it up.
Make a 9a and 9b or just a 9 and 10...

These courts are just going to vanish.
 
Stacko said:
Trump 'absolutely' looking at breaking up 9th Circuit

Maybe he could just try not being a moronic racist. That would clear up his problems with the court and maintain an independent judiciary.
Click to expand...


Trump is such a moron! Trump thinks his administration is running like a well-oiled machine. He is ignorant, lies, deceives, conceded, attacks the media, judges, demonstrators, and even Republicans and Democrats who have sabotaged his well-oiled machine by throwing monkey wrenches into the gears of his broken-down machine, which resulted in flying fragments of steel breaking a number of oil lines of his machine and spraying oil everywhere, which explains why his machine is well-oiled.

His machine is broken and not running correctly, but at least, it's well-oiled.
.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom