Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Joe941's Journal
Joe941's Journal
March 26, 2019

Ninth Circuit recommended for expansion. Could it mean shift to the right?


U.S. judicial leaders are proposing to add five more judges to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, an expansion that could potentially shift the majority from Democratic to Republican on a federal appellate court whose liberal rulings have long made it a favorite target for conservatives.

The recommendations from the Judicial Conference, whose members are judges representing the nation’s federal courts, are intended solely to ease the Ninth Circuit’s workload. If approved — with legislation that would require at least some Democratic support — it would increase the number of seats on the court from 29 to 34.

The Ninth Circuit now has 24 judges, 16 appointed by Democratic presidents and eight by Republicans, including three by the court’s most vocal critic, President Trump. He has called the circuit hostile and biased for its rulings against him on issues such as immigration, birth control and transgender military service.

But Trump has nominated candidates to fill five current vacancies on the court, and their confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate would narrow the division to 16-13, increasing the prospect of a Republican-appointed majority on the randomly chosen three-judge panels that decide most cases and the 11-judge panels that can overrule past precedents.

And if Trump could appoint five more judges in the next year, the court would have 34 members, 18 of them chosen by Republican presidents.

Keep a close eye on this. We can not afford to lose the 9th circuit.
March 26, 2019

Apologies to President Trump BY SHARYL ATTKISSON


With the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe now known to a significant degree, it seems apologies are in order.

However, judging by the recent past, apologies are not likely forthcoming from the responsible parties. In this context, it matters not whether one is a supporter or a critic of President Trump.

Whatever his supposed flaws, the rampant accusations and speculation that shrouded Trump’s presidency, even before it began, ultimately have proven unfounded. Just as Trump said all along.

Yet, each time Trump said so, some of us in the media lampooned him. We treated any words he spoke in his own defense as if they were automatically to be disbelieved because he had uttered them. Some even declared his words to be “lies,” although they had no evidence to back up their claims.

We in the media allowed unproven charges and false accusations to dominate the news landscape for more than two years, in a way that was wildly unbalanced and disproportionate to the evidence.

We did a poor job of tracking down leaks of false information. We failed to reasonably weigh the motives of anonymous sources and those claiming to have secret, special evidence of Trump’s “treason.”

As such, we reported a tremendous amount of false information, always to Trump’s detriment.

And when we corrected our mistakes, we often doubled down more than we apologized. We may have been technically wrong on that tiny point, we would acknowledge. But, in the same breath, we would insist that Trump was so obviously guilty of being Russian President Vladimir Putin’s puppet that the technical details hardly mattered.

So, a round of apologies seem in order.

This is complete garbage. I'm fearing we are losing in the media.
March 24, 2019

Congress will continue to investigate... make no mistake!

Until we get to the bottom of the collusion and get the indictments justice demands. This regardless of the Mueller report. TRump will be removed.

March 23, 2019

Where are the indictments for Russian collusion?

We know it happened. The evidence is clear. How can this be?!? Help me understand this.

March 8, 2019

We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges...

Back when Roberts excoriated tRump for calling a judge an "Obama judge" and told him: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." we all cheered. However, now I'm here the same line tRump used: "Ellis is a Reagan judge". Ok... Are we sure we want to join tRump in this argument?

Obviously we are disappointed in the months given Manafort, but is it really because he is a "Reagan Judge"? I will reluctantly accept the Manafort sentencing... I'm concerned about the court impartiality... I don't want the courts to be just another political institution. Maybe I'm alone on that.

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Sep 26, 2016, 12:31 PM
Number of posts: 2,848

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»Joe941's Journal