Friday, February 10, 2017

A judge on the 9th Circuit thinks the 3 judge panel were morons and is requesting an "en banc" review of this indefensible decision.

One of the things President Trump could do is request the entire 9th Circuit, or in this case, a 10 judge panel including the 3 idiots who ignored the law and ruled against him, reconsider that panel's decision.

There are various rumblings out there: that the President is not going to appeal, that he is going to appeal to an en banc panel, that he is or is not going to appeal to the US Supreme Court, that he is going to rewrite the executive order to any combination of those options.

Well, on the matter of the appeal, it appears that the President doesn't have to do anything since one of the OTHER judges on the 9th Circuit has requested this review on his own.

Source: Le*gal In*sur*rec*tion

Unidentified 9th Circuit Judge seeks vote on further review of panel Order


Posted by    Friday, February 10, 2017 at 8:30pm
As Trump considers going to SCOTUS and issuing a new Executive Order.

So this is curious.

A Judge at the 9th Circuit, whose name is not revealed, has requested a vote be taken whether to conduct en banc (full court) review of the February 9, 2017, Order by a three-judge panel denying Trump’s request for a stay of the District Court Temporary Restraining Order.

That TRO put a halt to all substantive aspects of Trump’s immigration Executive Order, including the temporary halt to visa entry from six failed states known for ISIS and al Qaeda presence, plus state sponsor of terrorism Iran.

Because the 9th Circuit is so large, en banc review only goes to 11 Judges.

The request by a Judge triggers a procedure, outlined in the docket entry and a formal Order, by which the parties have to file briefs stating their position:

(h/t to reader Cindy for the images)

We can all speculate on why a Judge would do this. The Judge may be upset with the panel ruling, which has been extensively criticized, and expects that a larger en banc review may reach a different result.
That would make sense because the TRO and denial of a stay creates an outrageous result:


Considering the depth of this legal betrayal on the part of these 3 judicial idiots, an appeal is mandatory.  That the source of such an appeal would be another judge in the same court?

That's essentially unheard of.

But what that means is at least one judge on the Court actually knows and reads the law.

Who knew?

No comments: