Democrats are celebrating a victory over President Donald Trump after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously to uphold a lower court ruling suspending the president’s travel ban’s enforcement.
But it’s Trump that could get the last laugh. There’s an effort by conservative lawmakers — led by a vocal Trump rival — to permanently break apart the liberal court.
The federal appeals court has long been ridiculed by conservatives as the “nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus.”
According to The Daily Caller, over 80% of the appeal court’s rulings have been overturned when challenged in front of the Supreme Court.
Covering a huge swath of territory — nine western states plus Guam — the San Francisco-based court handles far more cases than any other federal appeals court, including some rulings that have invoked furor from conservatives over the years. Among them: finding that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional and ruling that states can force Christian pharmacies to sell abortion pills.
This isn’t the only such bill aimed to take down the “nutty” 9th, either.
A House version previously introduced by Reps. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republican representatives would leave Washington in the 9th Circuit.
Liberal Media Bias Exposed [sponsored]
“As a promise to my constituents last year, I introduced this bill to protect Arizona from a federal circuit court that does not reflect the values nor laws of our state,” he said. “The Ninth Circuit cannot handle the number of states currently entrapped within its jurisdiction, causing access to justice to be delayed.”
The Associated Press contributed to this article
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment away! You're responsible for your own posts, but if you don't address the topic, &/or engage in pointless critical thinking logical fallacy distractions, diversions, deflections and evasions of the fact that you have to facts, your comments may be edited, moderated, deleted or just plain laughed at. If you post threats, they will not be removed, but will in stead remain as evidence of your crimes, for LEO's to use in tracing back to you, to deal with appropriately.
I especially won't tolerate the usual liberal slanders / Ad-hominem / un-justified personal attacks, nor the Argumentum Tu Quoque (i.e: "Evil crime / islam isn't really an evil crime, because we - i.e: you - all do it, too!") fallacies;i.e: COMPARING TWO OR MORE UNRELATED WRONGS WON'T EVER MAKE ONE OF THEM RIGHT. Capisce?