Judge blocks trump order on sanctuary city funding

JasperL · May 1, 2017

phattonez said:
Except in this case I can compare to other circuits, and they are quite nearly the worst.

OK, you CAN compare them but you're not using a legitimate basis of comparison. Just for example, how many cases does the 9th circuit hear each year? How many decisions issued? How many of those decisions are appealed to the SC? How many of those appeals does the SC hear? What % of those are overturned?

Now once you have all those stats for the 9th and for the appeals courts as a whole, THEN you can make an informed comparison. What you can't do is only know the last figure, number of cases heard by the SC, and then from that make judgements about the competence of the justices.

Just for example, in the Oct term, the SC heard 11 cases from the 9th and overturned 8 of them, affirmed 2 - 1 was a tie. So an 80% reversal rate. Well if they'd heard 33 cases from CA9, and overturned 22 of them, for a 67% reversal rate, is that better or worse? CA11 was overturned 100% of the time - 3 for 3. Does that tell us anything? Better or worse? If the 9th issued 10 times as many opinions as the 3rd but the SC only reviews 4 times as many cases, does that indicate the 9th is more or less competent than the 3rd?

JasperL · May 1, 2017

j-mac said:
Fact of the matter is that the 9th circuit is unquestioningly liberal biased....

OK, I'll accept that. But "liberal biased" doesn't tell us whether the justices are competent or not. It just tells us that on some subjective measure of "conservative" versus "liberal" that the CA9 is allegedly "liberal."

Are you saying that you are fine with the courts now exercising a supremacy over the other branches of Government only because you don't like who now is in control of the other two branches?

No. But I'll bet you are just fine with the courts exercising their legitimate constitutional powers when they were ruling against the Obama administration, as the courts did many times, as you know. Like you, I'll have opinions on cases and how they are decided and some of those opinions will be subjective and depend on what I think of the outcome. Still doesn't tell us whether the court got the decision correct on some basis in the law. Besides, cases at this level are almost all solidly in the gray area, with case law and the statute unclear, or else no need for an appeals court or for a SC. Fact is 99.9% or so of circuit court decisions never get heard by an appeals court, and 99.?% of appeals court decisions are never revisited by the SC.

It is clear that these cases are "judge shopped" specifically because of the favorable decision they bank on from the 9th....I'd say, that signals a broken system wouldn't you?

It's not at all clear. The OP is about a circuit court case involving cities in California. The obvious circuit to hear that case is in the CA9, not in Texas. If the plaintiffs had in fact somehow managed to get the case heard in Texas, that would be a clear case of judge shopping, but California cities suing in a district court based in CA is the obviously appropriate forum.

Objective Voice · May 1, 2017

Athanasius68 said:
Ok~ the law requires the states to report when they have illegal immigrants in their custody. President Trump seems willing to enforce a law more vigarously that President.

Can funds be withheld for refusing to obey the law? Beats me. Clearly the states think its possible (hence the lawsuit). These grants always come with strings. The states are not required to take the grants so there is no strong arming going on.

If you apply for a grant and you meet criteria, the grant should be awarded in the requisite amount. States and local municipalities can, however, withdraw from a grant and, thus, refuse the funds. That is their prerogative. I think the underlying issue here is the Executive via this EO is attempting to add a reporting criteria that isn't mandated by law and telling local and state entities that IF they don't report illegal criminal aliens in the prescribed manner per the EO they won't receive grant funds whether they meet the reporting guidelines per Title 8, USC 1373 or not. That's the problem - the coercive nature of the EO. But in principle, I tend to agree that if you've "banked" on receiving federal (grant) funding to meet your budgetary needs, you're really barking up the wrong tree. However, local and state entities have clearly been paying the up-front cost of housing and caring for these illegal alien inmates and concerns for being properly (or promptly) compensated for it has been a constant battle (in some respects) with the federal government.

Looking at the situation rationally, states could simply not house these types of inmates and let the federal government (ICE) deal with them on their (more stringent) terms, but since there is no "central incubator" for corralling these folks, all federal agencies tasked with apprehending these illegals have little choice but to find ways to work with local and state law enforcement entities to do their jobs. To that, I really don't see the logic in pocking local and state entities on this matter when you need them to do your job. However, I do understand the pressure the Executive (Trump) is under to get the illegal alien problem under control. I just do see where going about it this way is going to solve anything.

If the Executive (Atty Gen.) wants to use Detainer Disclosure Agreements as the official reporting document for illegal criminal aliens held in state prisons, go to Congress and change the law mandating the use of this form.

j-mac · May 1, 2017

JasperL said:
OK, I'll accept that. But "liberal biased" doesn't tell us whether the justices are competent or not. It just tells us that on some subjective measure of "conservative" versus "liberal" that the CA9 is allegedly "liberal."

The subjective measure I am using is common sense, based on their track record.

No. But I'll bet you are just fine with the courts exercising their legitimate constitutional powers when they were ruling against the Obama administration, as the courts did many times, as you know. Like you, I'll have opinions on cases and how they are decided and some of those opinions will be subjective and depend on what I think of the outcome. Still doesn't tell us whether the court got the decision correct on some basis in the law. Besides, cases at this level are almost all solidly in the gray area, with case law and the statute unclear, or else no need for an appeals court or for a SC. Fact is 99.9% or so of circuit court decisions never get heard by an appeals court, and 99.?% of appeals court decisions are never revisited by the SC.

I am not sure that the 99.9% number is absolute 'fact' as you state it, however, I will give you that a majority of cases decided by any circuit court are not reviewed by the SCOTUS....Still, the 9th rates 3rd over all of those cases reviewed, and is above the median in comparison...

From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period.[7] From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79 percent of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...he_Ninth_Circuit#Rate_of_overturned_decisions

It's not at all clear. The OP is about a circuit court case involving cities in California. The obvious circuit to hear that case is in the CA9, not in Texas. If the plaintiffs had in fact somehow managed to get the case heard in Texas, that would be a clear case of judge shopping, but California cities suing in a district court based in CA is the obviously appropriate forum.

So, to you it is totally coincidence that the district judge deciding the case, that will move to SCOTUS was an Obama appointee? Or that the Judge in Hawaii of all places was the one to place a nationwide halt to Trump's immigration ban from dangerous countries, Hawaii? really? Hawaii taking a huge amount of immigrants from these countries are they?

This looks to me like Obama packed as many ideological like minded individuals into Federal positions from Judges, to agency employees as possible in order to cause this exact kind of chaos regardless of who was elected from the republican side...IMHO. And, to me it is bordering on seditious of him to put this kind of cynical plan in to play.

JasperL · May 1, 2017

j-mac said:
The subjective measure I am using is common sense, based on their track record.

Right, whether you agree or not is 'common sense.' Unless I'm missing something and you're a noted constitutional law scholar?

I am not sure that the 99.9% number is absolute 'fact' as you state it, however, I will give you that a majority of cases decided by any circuit court are not reviewed by the SCOTUS....Still, the 9th rates 3rd over all of those cases reviewed, and is above the median in comparison...

From 1999 to 2008, of the 0.151% of Ninth Circuit Court rulings that were reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20% were affirmed, 19% were vacated, and 61% were reversed; the median reversal rate for all federal appellate courts was 68.29% for the same period.[7] From 2010 to 2015, of the cases it accepted to review, the Supreme Court reversed around 79 percent of the cases from the Ninth Circuit, ranking its reversal rate third among the circuits; the median reversal rate for all federal circuits for the same time period was around 70 percent.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...he_Ninth_Circuit#Rate_of_overturned_decisions

Ok, if you're right in your job 99.849% of the time according to your own link, that's likely pretty good. And the CA9 has about 45 justices - which do you want removed and why? Please be specific!

So, to you it is totally coincidence that the district judge deciding the case, that will move to SCOTUS was an Obama appointee?

If you have evidence the plaintiffs in the district court case that is the subject of the OP somehow illegitimately got the Obama appointee assigned, present it. If not, then yes it's obviously a 'coincidence.'

This looks to me like Obama packed as many ideological like minded individuals into Federal positions from Judges, to agency employees as possible in order to cause this exact kind of chaos regardless of who was elected from the republican side...IMHO. And, to me it is bordering on seditious of him to put this kind of cynical plan in to play.

Give me a break. Bush "packed as many ideological like minded individuals into Federal positions...." If it was seditious for Obama, it was for Bush, and Reagan, and Bush II, and Clinton and Carter, and...... And having a horribly drafted and overbroad EO struck down in a preliminary hearing isn't "chaos." It is HOW OUR SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES. Trump can defend this POS in court at the district court level and if he doesn't like the outcome, appeal to CA9 or maybe another district depending, and if not there, appeal to the SC. Happens all the time. It's why we have courts!

You just don't like that Trump got his wings clipped a little bit, but I know you loved it when the courts struck down Obama era actions.

j-mac · May 2, 2017

JasperL said:
Right, whether you agree or not is 'common sense.' Unless I'm missing something and you're a noted constitutional law scholar?

Me? No....Are you? Must anyone addressing your argument be an actual expert in Constitutional law to even address you? This IMHO, is where many on both sides make a mistake...No longer is it acceptable on either side to hold an opinion, no, we must have some sort of paper showing that we are "qualified" to hold an opinion.

Ok, if you're right in your job 99.849% of the time according to your own link, that's likely pretty good. And the CA9 has about 45 justices - which do you want removed and why? Please be specific!

I have not, and at this time will not spend the time to research every single member of the 9th, but suffice to say that I am sure that you can guess which judges I would disagree with. Just as you might have a few that you disagree with as well....But what is amazing is how liberals who absolutely trashed Gorsuch for the SC, are all of the sudden defending what looks like to many a plan by ideologically driven judges to throw wrenches into perfectly legal EO's from a President they don't like....That to me isn't "jurist prudence".... Maybe it is to you.

Give me a break. Bush "packed as many ideological like minded individuals into Federal positions...." If it was seditious for Obama, it was for Bush, and Reagan, and Bush II, and Clinton and Carter, and...... And having a horribly drafted and overbroad EO struck down in a preliminary hearing isn't "chaos." It is HOW OUR SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES.

See, You're getting mad that I won't budge in conceding to your point of view, so you feel it necessary to scream at me...You know what I do in real life, face to face conversations when liberals start going down this road? I basically say, 'I see', and walk away....IMHO, when you start screaming, you just lost.

Trump can defend this POS in court at the district court level and if he doesn't like the outcome, appeal to CA9 or maybe another district depending, and if not there, appeal to the SC. Happens all the time. It's why we have courts!

See, you'd love him to go through the Circuit court there, because you are pretty confident of the outcome. Not, based on law, but rather based on ideological make up of the court...And you think that is proper, why? Because you agree with that ideological opinion. But, that isn't the only path is it now? I mean, DoJ could appeal it straight to SCOTUS could they not?

You just don't like that Trump got his wings clipped a little bit, but I know you loved it when the courts struck down Obama era actions.

Actually, if the courts, strike down EO's, to me anyway it isn't that big a deal...I have argued in the past against ruling by EO, so the be consistent I don't like it here either...See, I think my own party has a big problem being in the majority, and actually having to do things like this through the proper course of action....We have left behind the time honored traditions of having to garner opposition votes to get things done...Reagan when in office made the common sense declaration in an interview that 'if he got 80% of what he wanted in a bill, in order to get things done, he would take that everytime...' We have given up on that, and will pay the price of this stupid 'all or nothing' governing.

JasperL · May 2, 2017

j-mac said:
Me? No....Are you? Must anyone addressing your argument be an actual expert in Constitutional law to even address you? This IMHO, is where many on both sides make a mistake...No longer is it acceptable on either side to hold an opinion, no, we must have some sort of paper showing that we are "qualified" to hold an opinion.

It's perfectly fine to hold an opinion. What you're doing is maligning the CA9 as incompetent. Just because you don't agree with their rulings doesn't make them incompetent or even wrong. The SC reversing them slightly more often than average doesn't mean they're incompetent. If the issue is in the gray area, and the CA9 decides one way, and a majority of the SC another, whose interpretation of how to resolve the uncertainty is correct? I don't know.

I have not, and at this time will not spend the time to research every single member of the 9th, but suffice to say that I am sure that you can guess which judges I would disagree with. Just as you might have a few that you disagree with as well....But what is amazing is how liberals who absolutely trashed Gorsuch for the SC, are all of the sudden defending what looks like to many a plan by ideologically driven judges to throw wrenches into perfectly legal EO's from a President they don't like....That to me isn't "jurist prudence".... Maybe it is to you.

You're concluding the EO was legal, but I haven't seen you discuss any part of the actual opinion you believe the district court got wrong. As I read it the court said nothing more than, "Congress controls the purse strings. If Congress says cities qualify for grant X by doing Y, Trump cannot change the rules in midstream and say now cities have to ALSO do Z. Also, healthcare funding cannot be rescinded because the police department failed to do Z." Seems like common sense and it was backed up by a number of SC cases that DIRECTED the district court to find what it did.

See, You're getting mad that I won't budge in conceding to your point of view, so you feel it necessary to scream at me...You know what I do in real life, face to face conversations when liberals start going down this road? I basically say, 'I see', and walk away....IMHO, when you start screaming, you just lost.

I'm just pointing out that you're calling acts by every president sedition and it's complete nonsense. If you can point to any fundamental difference with how Obama versus Bush II or Reagan or Nixon packed the courts or the federal bureaucracy with ideological allies, please present your evidence. If not, then you're just asserting that 'sedition' means a political foe doing stuff you don't LIKE.

And you know damn well that having a court strike down a law or EO is part of the checks and balances built into the system by the Founders (at least since Marbury in 1803). The courts exist to do that sort of thing. I have no idea how you're trying to claim it's somehow illegitimate.

See, you'd love him to go through the Circuit court there, because you are pretty confident of the outcome. Not, based on law, but rather based on ideological make up of the court...And you think that is proper, why? Because you agree with that ideological opinion. But, that isn't the only path is it now? I mean, DoJ could appeal it straight to SCOTUS could they not?

No, I'm saying the cities in CA went through that district court, and it will be appealed to CA9, because that's the proper venue - how things are supposed to work. And, yes, I suppose the DoJ could make an emergency appeal to the SC and we'll see if they accept the case out of order. I'd bet you a nickel they don't because there's no reason I can see to short circuit the process.

Actually, if the courts, strike down EO's, to me anyway it isn't that big a deal...I have argued in the past against ruling by EO, so the be consistent I don't like it here either...See, I think my own party has a big problem being in the majority, and actually having to do things like this through the proper course of action....We have left behind the time honored traditions of having to garner opposition votes to get things done...Reagan when in office made the common sense declaration in an interview that 'if he got 80% of what he wanted in a bill, in order to get things done, he would take that everytime...' We have given up on that, and will pay the price of this stupid 'all or nothing' governing.

Cool - we agree on that.

eace

j-mac · May 2, 2017

JasperL said:
It's perfectly fine to hold an opinion. What you're doing is maligning the CA9 as incompetent. Just because you don't agree with their rulings doesn't make them incompetent or even wrong. The SC reversing them slightly more often than average doesn't mean they're incompetent. If the issue is in the gray area, and the CA9 decides one way, and a majority of the SC another, whose interpretation of how to resolve the uncertainty is correct? I don't know.

You're concluding the EO was legal, but I haven't seen you discuss any part of the actual opinion you believe the district court got wrong. As I read it the court said nothing more than, "Congress controls the purse strings. If Congress says cities qualify for grant X by doing Y, Trump cannot change the rules in midstream and say now cities have to ALSO do Z. Also, healthcare funding cannot be rescinded because the police department failed to do Z." Seems like common sense and it was backed up by a number of SC cases that DIRECTED the district court to find what it did.

I'm just pointing out that you're calling acts by every president sedition and it's complete nonsense. If you can point to any fundamental difference with how Obama versus Bush II or Reagan or Nixon packed the courts or the federal bureaucracy with ideological allies, please present your evidence. If not, then you're just asserting that 'sedition' means a political foe doing stuff you don't LIKE.

And you know damn well that having a court strike down a law or EO is part of the checks and balances built into the system by the Founders (at least since Marbury in 1803). The courts exist to do that sort of thing. I have no idea how you're trying to claim it's somehow illegitimate.

No, I'm saying the cities in CA went through that district court, and it will be appealed to CA9, because that's the proper venue - how things are supposed to work. And, yes, I suppose the DoJ could make an emergency appeal to the SC and we'll see if they accept the case out of order. I'd bet you a nickel they don't because there's no reason I can see to short circuit the process.

Cool - we agree on that. eace

I am glad that we found some common ground in this argument....To be totally honest here, I don't know enough about the reasons that these cities got this particular district judge to hear their plea on the EO, I can only guess, and we both know that both sides, republican, and democrat regularly strategically pick the venue, based on where they think that they would have a favorable outcome....And, it is, what it is....

I only wish that we could get back to the branches doing their damned jobs, and working together....Sadly, that ain't going to happen, not in the next, at least 4 years...That is a loss for America.