If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Too bad Mexico isn't paying for the wall. Someone once said the sign of smartness was a persons predictive ability. I guess someone is a dumbass for predicting Mexico was going to pay for that stupid fucking wall.
But at least old people won't get food anymore. Phew!
To be a professional means that you don't die. - Takeru "the Tsunami" Kobayashi
It appears that a five-judge group, writing for the whole 9th Circuit Court, took the time to issue an opinion on the 3 judge panel decision for the TRO blocking travel from the T-7 countries:
In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban.
"The panel wraps up its ruthless condemnation of its fellow 3-panel decision by noting their errors are “many and obvious,” including the failure to even “apply the proper standard” of review. As the five judges wisely note: “we are judges, not Platonic guardians,” and the great losers of the 3-panel decision are those that believe elections matter and the rule of law deserves respect, as both were sacrificed for results-oriented judges who ignored the law and evaded the historical precedent to try to reverse the policy outcome of the recent election."
There's a story out there that Sean Hannity pulled a gun on Juan Williams after an in air argument in October. I know, shocking. Why didn't he didn't just use a karate chop to knock down Williams.
It appears that a five-judge group, writing for the whole 9th Circuit Court, took the time to issue an opinion on the 3 judge panel decision for the TRO blocking travel from the T-7 countries:
In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump’s travel ban.
"The panel wraps up its ruthless condemnation of its fellow 3-panel decision by noting their errors are ?many and obvious,? including the failure to even ?apply the proper standard? of review. As the five judges wisely note: ?we are judges, not Platonic guardians,? and the great losers of the 3-panel decision are those that believe elections matter and the rule of law deserves respect, as both were sacrificed for results-oriented judges who ignored the law and evaded the historical precedent to try to reverse the policy outcome of the recent election."
1) They weren't writing for "the whole 9th circuit"; they were writing for themselves
2) They also took time to blast Trump for personally attacking the judiciary, writing:
"The personal attacks on the distinguished district judge and our colleagues were out of all bounds of civic and persuasive discourse -- particularly when they came from the parties," they wrote.
"Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are acceptable principles," the judges added. "The courts of law must be more than that, or we are not governed by law at all."
Five Republican-appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals signaled their support for the legal underpinnings of President Donald Trump’s travel ban late Wednesday in an unusual and unsolicited filing.
The thought of cutting the Great Lakes initiative is ridiculous. Apparently Trump voters never use the Great Lakes.
No, apparently you don't live on the Great Lakes.
I however do. The only local program I know of under this GLI is a $ 7.8 million dollar grant to knock down some berms between a wetland ("connected" to Lake Michigan) and a muck farm. As God is my witness, I could easily do the job for $50,000 and make a $ 20,000 profit.
I wrote my congressman, Rino Huizenga, telling him so, but he believes expanding the wetland will produce more tourism in Muskegon MI. Froot, everyone up and down the chain of this boondoggle "gets a share". There are environmental consultants, engineering consultants, the local Sierra Club, and all the separate local governments taking a piece to "reimburse" themselves for their impact studies. We are talking about 1,000 feet of six-foot high berm.
The last local project( 5 years ago) was a "turtle fence" to try to keep painted turtles from crossing the expressway, where a couple dozen or so would get hit by cars. $350,000. But come mating season, those horny turtles found a way around the fence!!!
The "turtle fence" now stands as a monument to governmental stupidity, and to the sexual drive of turtles everywhere.
No, DSL, those five were the only ones to opine on the radical nature of the decision. I trust Dan Abrams on this matter, not CNN. "The five judges included the famed, and most respected intellectual amongst the Ninth Circuit, Alex Kozinski. The others included Jay Bybee, Consuelo Callahan, Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta." Heh, I've heard of Kozinski, and he is very much a liberal. No other judge chose to concur with the 3-judge panel. These five wanted to clear up the record, as Abrams reports.
Tweet
Comment