Appeals court rules against Ashcroft in 9/11 case

RightinNYC said:

No, my first inclination is to express surprise at an inexplicable abrogation of prosecutorial immunity, a long-standing practice that was recently upheld in Iqbal.



What do you think that proves?



If you're going to keep up with this nonsense, I'm not going to bother responding to you.

Click to expand...

You're the one pointing out from the start is was a split decision!

Yes what does that prove??????

That the "majority" sucks since they ruled against your guys???

You only get prosecutorial immunity in the process of performing your job as prosecutor....you don't get it for illegally and in bad faith wrongly applying statutes that enable you to imprison people under false pretenses.

Redress said:

The health care threads are elsewhere. Feel free to talk about it in those threads. We are discussing a current ruling. We are able to talk about more than one thing even, you might try it.

Click to expand...

absolutely, redress, sir, i defer to you

by all means, carry on

Redress said:

"en banc"?

That does not sound much worse than normal though really. IIRC, the SC overturns about 3/4ish of the rulings they rule on.

Click to expand...

'En banc' means the whole circuit sits and reviews a panel's decision.

It's the Ninth Circuit, for crying out loud. The odds are that they'll be overturned shortly.

Basically, the Ninth Circuit is an odd play performed while more serious jurists go about the business of applying the law.

Oftencold said:

It's the Ninth Circuit, for crying out loud. The odds are that they'll be overturned shortly.

Basically, the Ninth Circuit is an odd play performed while more serious jurists go about the business of applying the law.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Suddenly I find myself having [ame="http://forums.youthrights.org/showthread.php?p=392713#post392713"]renewed respect for Max[/ame].

Redress said:

"en banc"?

That does not sound much worse than normal though really. IIRC, the SC overturns about 3/4ish of the rulings they rule on.

Click to expand...

Coming from that side, you're exactly right (76% of all decisions reversed in whole v. 82% of 9th Circuit decisions reversed in whole). However, when you look at what percent is affirmed in whole, it's much lower (20% of all decisions affirmed in whole v. 6% of 9th Circuit decisions affirmed in whole). This trend has lasted for several years.

dragondad said:

You're the one pointing out from the start is was a split decision!

Yes what does that prove??????

Click to expand...

That it was a split decision, not a unanimous one as the article implies?

That the "majority" sucks since they ruled against your guys???

Click to expand...

No, it proves that it was a split decision, not a unanimous one as the article implies. I'm not going to say that one side "sucks," but that indicates that it's not the cut and dried case that you would like to pretend it is.

You only get prosecutorial immunity in the process of performing your job as prosecutor....you don't get it for illegally and in bad faith wrongly applying statutes that enable you to imprison people under false pretenses.

Click to expand...

And I don't think that's what happened here.

RightinNYC said:

Coming from that side, you're exactly right (76% of all decisions reversed in whole v. 82% of 9th Circuit decisions reversed in whole). However, when you look at what percent is affirmed in whole, it's much lower (20% of all decisions affirmed in whole v. 6% of 9th Circuit decisions affirmed in whole). This trend has lasted for several years.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification and amplification.