President Trump

oldngray

nowhere special
Judge Mehta, a U.S. District judge, was nominated to his position by President Barack Obama.
The judge even admitted that the Dems would leak those records. Another fishing expedition. It will get overturned but the crooked judge blocked a stay during appeals. That should make it easier to get fast tracked to get thrown out. I expect Trump to pull an Obama and stall turning over records. Or pull a Hillary and delete the records. Or a Holder and claim no records could be found.
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
Do we simply ignore judges we disagree with?

Seriously. Something’s wrong here.
No, we seek out judges that support our agenda. Many judges are legislating from the bench. Those with the weakest argument use a sympathetic judge to validate and bolster that suspect position.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Just like when the Dems say something needs to be done for the dreamers. Trump presents a plan and they don't consider it because it's from him.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Just like when the Dems say something needs to be done for the dreamers. Trump presents a plan and they don't consider it because it's from him.
He was offered his wall in exchange for the dreamers. He turned it down. Trump presenting plans is as believable as plans I present, not worth anything.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
He was offered his wall in exchange for the dreamers. He turned it down. Trump presenting plans is as believable as plans I present, not worth anything.
He didn't turn it down he actually offered the dreamers first.
The Dems offered the wall without any funding. It's the bait and switch tactic they successfully used in 2006.
Once they won a decision on the dreamers at the lower court they pulled all offers.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
1A729932-313F-4BB0-A862-077C3DECD22A.png
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
He was offered his wall in exchange for the dreamers. He turned it down. Trump presenting plans is as believable as plans I present, not worth anything.
I didn't think a path to citizenship was nothing....but OK. He was offered $.03 towards his wall and he wanted $3.00..…...thanks but no thanks!!
 

BrownArmy

Well-Known Member
He didn't turn it down he actually offered the dreamers first.
The Dems offered the wall without any funding. It's the bait and switch tactic they successfully used in 2006.
Once they won a decision on the dreamers at the lower court they pulled all offers.

Wrong.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
But everyone says that about rulings they don’t like. It’s a BS argument.

well considering the fact that a significant portion are overturned by a higher authority I think the argument has proven merit.

per Wikipedia


Rate of overturned decisions[edit]
Some argue the court's rulings are reversed by the Supreme Court at a higher rate than other courts.

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.[6] 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.[7]

Some argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits. This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases.[8][
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
well considering the fact that a significant portion are overturned by a higher authority I think the argument has proven merit.

per Wikipedia


Rate of overturned decisions[edit]
Some argue the court's rulings are reversed by the Supreme Court at a higher rate than other courts.

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.[6] 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.[7]

Some argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits. This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases.[8][
You didn’t read your own article, did you?
 
Top