Acknowledgment Hearing Form

The 9th Circuit is the MOST Liberal Court in the Nation. Even with Liberals controlling SCOTUS, it was the most overturned Court in the country. The 9th Circuit is to the left of the left.Trump is turning it to the Right. He has appointed conservatives in all the openings that have come up.Traditionally Presidents allowed Senators from the states covered by the Circuit to Blue ticket a nominee, effectively blocking them. Trump does not even ask Senators their opinion on any of his nominees. And he does not take blue slips from anyone.With the Republicans controlling the Senate, he doesn't need any Democrats to support his appointments. And, every Republican Senator understands the importance of getting conservatives on the Federal Circuit Courts.Many issues never make it to the Supreme Court so many issues die in the Circuit Courts of Appeals, and as such, they are ersatz Supreme Courts. So they are VERY IMPORTANT.Senator Feinstein of California has been denied any input into Trump’s appointments of the 9th and is literally so hot under the collar you could use her head to heat your house in the winter.

Question: Should the 9th circuit Court of Appeals be split because of liberal bias?Answer: NO! It should be replaced, along with all others making decisions the same way.Decisions of all courts and judges should be regularly reviewed to be sure that they are in accordance with laws already on the books and Constitution.The law should never be judged according to political party, popularity, or personal opinion. Tyranny and governmental class society results.

Updated 5:11pm PST Thu Feb 9 2017.Thanks for the ask to answer.Take a look at the opinion: State of Washington v. Trump, 17–35105 (Feb 9 2017).The order is pretty straightforward. In its unanimous ruling, the Ninth Circuit held:“To rule on the Government’s motion, we must consider several factors, including whether the Government has shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal, the degree of hardship caused by a stay or its denial, and the public interest in granting or denying a stay. We assess those factors in light of the limited evidence put forward by both parties at this very preliminary stage and are mindful that our analysis of the hardships and public interest in this case involves particularly sensitive and weighty concerns on both sides. Nevertheless, we hold that the Government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.”In so many words, the Ninth Circuit basically deferred to the Western District Federal Court for the State of Washington, noting that the impact of Trump’s Executive Order “was immediate and widespread” and that the States of Washington and Minnesota had alleged convincingly that Trump’s Executive Order “was not meant to protect against terror attacks by foreign nationals but rather was intended to enact a ‘Muslim ban’ as the President had stated during his presidential campaign that he would do.”The Ninth Circuit was pretty clear in confirming that the States of Washington and Minnesota had and have “third party standing” to bring this lawsuit, just as it was clear in ruling that federal courts have the authority to enjoin Executive Orders like the one at issue. Beyond that, the Ninth Circuit held that Washington State and Minnesota were likely to succeed on their Due Process Clause claim, but expressed “no view as to any of the States’ other claims.” (Well, sort of. What the Ninth Circuit actually said was, “We’ll wait until we have more of a record to rule on the other claims.” Or words to that effect.) In sum, many of the people who had valid green cards and visas had no notice of the Executive Order and no opportunity to respond. Indeed, many of these people were literally up in the air when the Executive Order was signed, being turned away when their planes landed and they tried to enter the United States legally. Balancing the hardships of these people against the public interest, the Ninth Circuit found that the federal government simply hadn’t made a convincing case that there was some sort of imminent harm that the Executive Order was designed to address.The Ninth Circuit’s order was pretty much everything that the States of Washington and Minnesota asked for, giving the Talented Mister Trump the proverbial middle finger, in the nicest possible way. Even so, the United States Supreme Court will almost certainly weigh in on this matter in a few days. After that, there will almost certainly be a lengthy trial where we will get to find out just how ignorant and incompetent the Trump Administration really is.Twitter

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s appeal of a stay on the order issued by a district court judge at the request of plaintiffs suing to overturn the order.The plaintiffs requested the stay to prevent the order from being implemented until their case can be heard.The Trump administration appealed the stay on the grounds that delaying the order was harmful to national security. The administration also seems to have argued that national security decisions by the president are not reviewable by the courts at all, which is contrary to numerous established precedents. The Court of Appeals seems to think that since there are already very extensive vetting processes in place for both refugees and visa applicants, the government failed to prove that not implementing these new resrtictions RIGHT NOW would pose an imminent threat to national security.The 9th circuit Court of Appeals upheld the stay, meaning the order itself remains on hold while the case against it proceeds. This was not a ruling on the merits of the order itself.What happens next? The administration can appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court. The Court can refuse to hear this appeal if there are not at least 4 justices who think there might be grounds to reverse the stay. This would leave the stay in place while the case against the order proceeds.Alternatively, the Court could hear an appeal of the stay. If at least 5 justices are willing to vote to overturn the stay, the order will go into effect while the case against it proceeds in the lower courts. As the Court only has 8 justices at present and the confirmation process for a new justice should take at least 2 to 3 months, if the Court splits 4-4 the lower court ruling upholding the stay would remain in place.In either case, the case challenging the order itself will probably take a few months to complete at the district court level, after which the losing side will appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and from there to the Supreme Court. The whole process could take six months to a year or more.

As others have said, the state of Hawaii will request an en banc review.The chances are that the current ruling will be overturned. It’s the same odds as those for the Pope remaining Catholic.I have to assume that the state is hoping the Supreme Court will do as it did in Peruta v. San Diego and decline to accept the case. This would leave the en banc opinion in force.The problem is that this might not work out as they expect.It’s likely that Brent Kavanaugh will be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. It takes just four justices to grant certiorari or agree to review the case. Justice Clarence Thomas has been critical of the court’s inaction on Second Amendment issues since McDonald v. Chicago and it’s likely that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would agree.That would mean that the three would only have to persuade either Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Samuel Alito to provide the fourth vote. Since both Roberts and Alito concurred with the majority in both the McDonald and Heller cases, it’s a pretty fair bet that one or both of them would concur.This is the nightmare scenario, not only for Hawaii, but for some other states, as well.The betting would be that Thomas and Gorsuch would be joined by Kavanaugh and, most likely Roberts and Alito in a 5–4 majority reversing the en banc’s reversal and affirming the original opinion. In their view, they would simply be upholding the opinion written by the late Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia write that “bear” means “carry” it that the interpretation must be that it means carry outside of the home, which is already covered by “keep.”If the Second Amendment guarantees a citizen’s right to bear arms, then it must protect some way of carrying them. If concealed carry is an acceptable restriction subject to licensing, then open carry is the only alternative.How far this verdict might extend is an open question. You can’t license a constitutional right because that turns the right into a privilege granted at the pleasure of the state. This is exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits.The old example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater doesn’t really apply for the simple reason that nobody licenses a person to yell “fire” in a crowded (or any other kind of) theater. We don’t license porngraphers, either.In addition, the majority of the states already permit unlicensed open carry of handguns (see graphic). Twelve of those states allow both open and concealed carry without a permit.So the right to carry is already observed in more states than than it is restricted; an opinion upholding open carry as a protected right would, technically, cause less upheaval. Only 18 states would need to make changes to be in compliance and some of those are already moving in that direction.Admittedly, the upheaval states include some of the most vocal opponents to gun rights, including open and overt hostility in government (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, for example). On the other hand, there probably wouldn’t be a lot of resistance in Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. At the moment, Florida is kind of up in the air.A decision reversing the likely en banc review in the Ninth District would also yield a partial victory in Peruta. California could remain a “may issue” state for concealed carry but would have to abandon the Mulford Act forbidding the open carry of loaded firearms passed in 1967 and the general prohibition on open carry enacted as Assembly Bill 144 in 2011. New York City leaders would go ballistic. For the first time since the Sullivan Act went into effect in 1911, denizens of the city would be able to openly carry firearms without city permission.If Young v. Hawaii is accepted by the courts, I would expect a battle royale to ensue. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor would argue tooth and nail; the court would be flooding with amicus curiae briefs from every state attorney general and every special interest group in the nation. The Internet would be filled with pointless petitions and requests for donations to this cause or that (folks, you can’t lobby the Supreme Court, so save your money). Michael Bloomberg would take a hunk of his fortune and the NRA would unlock its treasure chest, not so much to politic as to support the legal teams on either side.Politicking and propaganda notwithstanding, it’s likely that the majority of the probable justices will agree with Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, who wrote the opinion in Young v. Hawaii. The Second Amendment does protect a right to carry and if government is allowed to license concealed carry, citizens must be allowed to exercise their civil rights by open carry not subject to licensing.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has scheduled hearings on Kavanaugh to begin right after Labor Day and I would presume a vote would be scheduled as soon as possible after the hearings. Kavanaugh could be confirmed by the time the next session of the Supreme Court opens in early October.Don’t expect anything too quickly, though. While the attorneys for Mr. Young might want to fast-track this case directly to the Supreme Court, the attorneys for Hawaii will want to stretch things out with an en banc review and maximum foot-dragging, unless it looks like the current ruling will be affirmed. If that happens, along with flocks of flying pigs, we would probably see the state raise the white flag and give up.

The weight would depend upon showing how the majority of circuits whom have heard the issue have ruled. If only a few circuit has heard the issue before, and all of those rulings were similar, and then another circuit issues a conflicting opinion, that will end up with the issue eventually being appealed to SCOTUS, whom will put credence in the majority-held circuit court opinions going into the case.Thus, if your circuit hasn’t heard a given issue, how the other circuits have treated the issue is highly signNow, with the closer circuits bearing more significance, though it isn’t necessarily binding on the court. If the court goes against these rulings, however, the court will need to be sure that its theory is well-grounded in established SCOTUS opinions. If your circuit has heard the case, then it is your circuit’s opinion which is generally binding in that circuit as precedent, though the lower courts can elect not to follow precedent because of differences in the issues and facts between the two cases.

A2A. Asylum seekers are not the product of Open Border policy. They do exactly what immigration process should be. They do not sneak in and disappear. They come at official point of entry and declare their intentions. They will be registered, fingerprinted and scheduled for hearing. They hope that due to overwhelming crowd at detention centers, where they supposed to be kept, before their hearings, the process will be cut short and they will be officially let in as LEGAL immigrants. Shortening due process will result in poor vetting, which is something Homeland Security Dept. cannot and should not agree to. So the administration got relief for their Border Control. I am pleasantly surprised.As to the fact that notoriously liberal court agreed with Trump, I have this to say. If you are true liberal, you cannot advocate for both Open Borders and Welfare State at once. You have to select one of the two, realistically. Unless, of cause, you are a college student and ignorant as such. Court made a sound decision for Welfare State here, I guess. Trump has never expressed usual for Republicans contempt towards Welfare State concept. That is how they got in same lane.

Speak to your attorney. Take their advice.

The Mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to support the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the courts within the circuit.

The United States Court of AppEvals for the Ninth Circuit (in case citations, 9th Cir.) is a court of appEval that has appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: ... Eastern District of California. Northern District of California. Southern District of California.

The Ninth Circuit Court of AppEvals is authorized 29 judgeship while the district courts of the circuit are authorized 112 judgeship. Since 2001, there have been 21 new circuit judges and 106 new district judges appointed. Most judgeship vacancies result from a judge assuming senior status.

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists of the Ninth Circuit Court of AppEvals along with district and bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal judicial districts that comprise the circuit, and associated administrative units that provide various court services.

How long does it take from the time of argument to the time of decision? The Court has no time limit, but most cases are decided within 3 months to a year.