Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seriously, you tell us. You're the legal scholar with a very narrow specialization in Trump-related cases. You should be able to pull this information from a Facebook meme.
I see my point flew extremely far over your head...again.....but what can we expect with...well...bless your heart...
9 if I remember correctly....and that was during the Obama years....
The Dems hate judges who use the actual law when making their decisions. They rely on activist judges making up law to support their agenda.
Sure conservatives have a history the last 2 years of going along with judges rulings, now that's funny. I guess actual law is when you agree with the courts decision and when it goes against your opinion its legislating from the bench. I'm not going to search down the judges voter registration and complain if he is a republican, I could care less.
I think back to the republicans criticizing the Iran deal and sending a letter to their leader quoting the constitution, where are they now. I don't know if this violates the constitution. I will leave that to the courts but the silence from the right on this and the Trump tariffs has been deafening, where did they go.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYJoe
The Dems hate judges who use the actual law when making their decisions. They rely on activist judges making up law to support their agenda.
Can you point out the "actual law" that gives the POTUS the right to redistribute funds allocated for other purposes to his own little pet projects? And, IF it really is an emergency as alleged, Trump's certainly taken his damn sweet time acting on it.
I see my point flew extremely far over your head...again.....but what can we expect with...well...bless your heart...
9 if I remember correctly....and that was during the Obama years....
Next...
You didn’t make a point. You asked how many times the 9th Circuit has been reversed, apropos of nothing, in a thread about a district court decision that falls under the jurisdiction of the D.C. Circuit.
A charitable reading of your post would be that you’re suggesting that the 9th Circuit will affirm Judge Gilliam’s contrary decision, and the Supreme Court will reverse it because of the 9th Circuit’s track record. If that was your point, then it didn’t go over my head... I’m just too intelligent to draw hasty conclusions from raw statistics.
Between 2007 and 2018, the Ninth Circuit was reversed in 75.5% of the cases that SCOTUS agreed to hear. The D.C. Circuit was reversed 72.3% of the time - not exactly a resounding improvement. You should leave the legal trivia to the big boys, and stick to more general talking points about Obummer judges, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
