Calguns.net

Calguns.net (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=331)
-   -   9th Circuit Court of Appeals watch (https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1443232)

Paladin 04-24-2018 3:15 PM

9th Circuit Court of Appeals watch
 
Since we already have a "SCOTUS watch" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post21060351), I thought I'd start one for CA9 since most RKBA cases don't make it to SCOTUS. (Yeah, understatement of the year...) Just post any news/rumors in the press re. appointments/retirements/public statements (re. the 2nd A RKBA), by nominees or judges for CA9 with a link.

Quote:

Will Trump Rebuild the 9th Circuit? With the death of "liberal lion" Stephen Reinhardt and resignation of Alex Kozinski, the notorious 9th Circuit Court of Appeals now has seven vacancies, which if filled with conservatives, could provide some balance to the most liberal and most powerful of the federal circuits. Barnini Chakraborty of Fox News reports that while President Trump has nominated two judges to the court since his election, Democrats are digging in to block the confirmation of any Republican nominee. During the Obama Administration, Democrats did away with the practice of allowing a senator to "blue slip" (void) a nominee to a federal court in his home state. Today, Democrats are insisting that they be allowed to use the blue slip to block any Trump pick to the court. CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger noted that the 9th has been "out in left field" since President Carter packed it with liberals in the 1970s.
From: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/

ETA: Status of vacancies and nominees for CA9 as of 2018 Aug 27:

In chronological order of nominations:

1) Ryan D. Nelson (ID): nominated 2018 May 15; should be confirmed late 2018

2) Eric D. Miller (WA): nominated 2018 July 19

3) Bridget Shelton Bade (AZ): nominated 2018 Aug 27

Plus, we have one OR and three CA openings awaiting nominees.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ng_nominations

Jimi Jah 04-25-2018 7:58 AM

Democrats are trying to stall all the nominees until after the November election. They are counting on re-taking the Senate and therefore blocking all Trump's nominees.

CCWFacts 04-25-2018 10:06 AM

The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to get to work. If they can put on seven solid conservatives we will have a good chance of winning RKBA cases here and the other side will be much more cautious about what they fight and what they appeal. We will have a good chance of a balanced or favorable en banc and can overturn or replace (Flanagan) Peruta at the en banc level.

Jimi Jah 04-26-2018 8:41 AM

Mitch Mr. Rogers was on Fox last night and questioned about those delays. He said they have a good complaint. Then he passed the buck.

CCWFacts 05-08-2018 4:39 PM

Good news: Trump's push for conservative judges intensifies, to Democrats' dismay.

Quote:

As President Donald Trump pursues his goal of making the federal judiciary more conservative, his fellow Republicans who control the Senate are poised to confirm another batch of his picks for influential U.S. appeals courts to the dismay of some Democrats.
I really hope he doesn't ever pick anyone who satisfies the Democrats.

As Young v. Hawaii (right to bear) is in the 9th already, the composition of the court matters a lot for a possible en banc panel.

There's a chance the Republicans will lose the Senate in November. Trump and the Senate Judiciary Committee need to get working overtime, and when the phone rings and they can see the caller ID says it's from a Democratic senator, let it go to voicemail!

An article in WaPo indicates something which has been irking us, which is that he's somehow not going after the 9th the way he should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaPo
Conservative groups pleased with Trump’s judicial picks overall have so far given him a pass for not moving more quickly to reshape the 9th Circuit, laying the slowdown at the feet of Democrats.

I wish no one would give Trump any kind of pass on this.

Quote:

Feinstein has already warned the White House against nominating conservatives over her and Harris’s objections, telling Vice President Pence and White House Counsel Donald McGahn during a January 2017 meeting that she would continue to rely on a bipartisan nominating commission in California for vacancies in her state.
Why does our side even have conversations with Feinstein? She will never care about our side. She will never compromise.

speedrrracer 05-08-2018 5:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 21618583)
Why does our side even have conversations with Feinstein? She will never care about our side. She will never compromise.

Because there is no "our" side. 2A rights, in spite of the amount of coverage in the MSM, are a small blip on the national political radar because there isn't enough political will to accomplish anything nationally, and the states which elected Trump enjoy good-to-excellent 2A freedoms already, while the states that voted against Trump have their knife in the back of the 2A, just the way they like it.

Trump is happy to guarantee "our" vote with a rah-rah speech at the NRA, but actions will always speak louder than words, we can see that Trump nominated an anti to the 9th with no hesitation, and the NRA was deliriously happy to host him in spite of that nomination.

The 2A isn't Trump's primary focus. It's a bargaining chip for him. The states that elected Trump don't care if another anti-2A moron sits on the 9th, and neither does Trump. CA is just wasted space to Trump -- he gets only hassles from this place, so if he can placate Feinstein with an anti and get any small concession in return, he'll happily take it every day and twice on Sunday.

sarabellum 05-09-2018 2:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 21618681)
Because there is no "our" side. 2A rights, in spite of the amount of coverage in the MSM, are a small blip on the national political radar because there isn't enough political will to accomplish anything nationally, and the states which elected Trump enjoy good-to-excellent 2A freedoms already, while the states that voted against Trump have their knife in the back of the 2A, just the way they like it.

Trump is happy to guarantee "our" vote with a rah-rah speech at the NRA, but actions will always speak louder than words, we can see that Trump nominated an anti to the 9th with no hesitation, and the NRA was deliriously happy to host him in spite of that nomination.

The 2A isn't Trump's primary focus. It's a bargaining chip for him. The states that elected Trump don't care if another anti-2A moron sits on the 9th, and neither does Trump. CA is just wasted space to Trump -- he gets only hassles from this place, so if he can placate Feinstein with an anti and get any small concession in return, he'll happily take it every day and twice on Sunday.

↑↑ This is the correct answer and deserves a sticky.

Paladin 07-31-2018 7:33 PM

Quote:

The Senate has a constitutional right and duty to ensure, through the confirmation process, that nominees have the education and professional experience necessary to qualify them for particular positions. No one questions that. And no one is arguing that the Senate is voting down unqualified nominees (yet).

But the obstruction campaign is a bad faith effort on the part of the left. It is designed solely to make it difficult for Trump to govern.

How bad is it? As of July 17, the Senate had confirmed 515 presidential nominations. That may sound like a lot, but it’s nearly 30 percent less than the number confirmed at this point in President Barack Obama’s first term.

And it’s not that Trump hasn’t given the upper chamber plenty of nominations to act on. A whopping 371 nominations are now pending in the Senate, including 90 judicial nominees.

So how is the left delaying votes? The Senate cannot vote on whether to confirm a nomination until it ends debate. Traditionally, the majority and minority parties cooperated on setting time limits for debate and scheduling confirmation votes. No more. And the only other way to end debate is the formal, time-consuming cloture process and requires 60 votes. A filibuster occurs when that attempt to end debate fails.

In 2013, Democrats succeeded in re-interpreting the cloture rule, effectively ending nomination filibusters by reducing the votes needed to end debate to a simple majority. Republicans extended that change to Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

This obstruction campaign is more about the president who is making the nominations than it is about the nominees themselves.

Cloture votes can no longer keep confirmation votes from happening, but they can still be used to drag out the confirmation process for days.

So far during the Trump era, the Senate has been forced to take 106 of these unnecessary cloture votes on executive and judicial branch nominations. At this point in Obama’s first term, there had been only 12 cloture votes on nominations. In fact, the Senate had taken a total of only 20 cloture votes on nominations at this point under the last 12 presidents combined.
More at:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/...president.html

Noble Cause 07-31-2018 8:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 21618681)
===== Snipped for Brevity =====

Trump is happy to guarantee "our" vote with a rah-rah speech at the NRA, but actions will always speak louder than words, we can see that Trump nominated an anti to the 9th with no hesitation, and the NRA was deliriously happy to host him in spite of that nomination.


If your interested in the Truth on this complex issue, here is a very detailed
explanation, well worth your time to read:

Background on 9Th Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Appointment
Process and Bennett Nomination

C. D. "Chuck" Michel of MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/...&postcount=102

Small excerpt:

Quote:

Many gun owners are rightfully frustrated with Bennett’s nomination.
The nomination of Bennett has to be viewed with some knowledge of the
nomination process in order to understand what’s going on.

Unfortunately, because of the way that the federal judicial appointments
process works, the pool of potential nominees that President Trump could
choose from to fill this particular Ninth Circuit vacancy was small, and this
nomination is difficult to stop.

Here’s how it works in detail:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43762.pdf
So the situation is not as simple as the average layperson would assume.

Implying Trump is somehow Anti 2A over this issue ignores the reality of
how the process works.


Noble

nick 07-31-2018 8:59 PM

The "blue chip" rule didn't stop the liberals under Obama administration. Why should it stop us now?

Paladin 08-15-2018 3:30 PM

Quote:

Is Trump finally ready to turn his sights toward remaking the 9th Circuit Court?

There’s been a noticeable exception to President Trump’s otherwise successful effort to appoint young, conservative judges to the nation’s appellate courts: the liberal-leaning U.S. 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states.

Since Trump took office, the Senate has confirmed only one 9th Circuit judge — in Hawaii — leaving seven openings. A nominee in Oregon was abruptly withdrawn last month when it became clear he lacked the votes for Senate approval.

And Trump has yet to even nominate anyone for the three vacancies in California, partly because of a standoff with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.

That’s a stark contrast to Trump’s record on appointments of appeals court judges elsewhere in the country. The Senate has confirmed a record 24 new circuit court judges nationwide in 20 months — with two more nominees scheduled for votes this week.

Now, however, there are signs that the administration is beginning to set its sights on the 9th Circuit, likely triggering a bruising fight with Democrats.

<snip>

Why the administration and Senate leadership are hardening their approach now is unclear. One possibility, however, is that Trump is simply running out of vacancies in other circuits.

<snip>

About two-thirds of the 12 appeals court vacancies remaining nationwide are on the 9th Circuit.

<snip>

Though Trump is within striking distance of flipping some circuits from a majority of Democratic appointees to a majority of Republican appointees, the best he can hope for so far in the 9th would be increasing the conservative presence on the court.

Before Trump took office, the 9th Circuit had 20 Democratic and nine Republican appointees. If Trump filled all the current openings with conservatives, the balance would be 16 Democratic appointees to 13 Republican appointees.

Trump’s best chance to reshape the 9th Circuit would come from filling two vacant California seats once held by liberal lions: Judge Harry Pregerson, who took a reduced workload in 2015 and died in late 2017, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who died unexpectedly in March. Both were President Carter appointees and were considered among the most left-leaning judges in the country.

More at:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...815-story.html

CCWFacts 08-27-2018 9:22 PM

Trump made another pick for the 9th today.
President Trump will nominate Arizona Magistrate Judge Bridget Shelton Bade for an open position on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House said Monday.

Arizona’s Republican senators, the late Sen. John McCain, who died Saturday, and Sen. Jeff Flake, have a history of clashes with Trump, but a White House official — who was not authorized to speak on the record — said Monday that Bade was recommended by the senators’ judicial selection committee and isn’t expected to face opposition.
I can't help but think this timing is connected at least a little to McCain's death.

BTW, just so everyone understands, due to the 9th circuit rules, certain judges must come from certain states. This is why the pick from Hawaii was a disappointment to most of us. Trump really had no other options. This judge should be ok I hope because there are good conservative choices in AZ. The judges from California and Oregon will be more of a difficulty because Trump will need to ignore the blue slip rule which says that a state's senators must approve the judge, and there's no one that would be acceptable to both Trump and California's senators, obviously. I'm putting this information in this post because when Trump needs to appoint a judge from California, it helps everyone to understand the rules he has to operate under (and the rule he will need to choose to ignore).

I didn't find much information about her, other than she's 53 years old (according to a MyLife profile that popped up), which is a little older than I would have preferred for a lifetime appointment, but that's ok.

speedrrracer 08-28-2018 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22048414)

BTW, just so everyone understands, due to the 9th circuit rules, certain judges must come from certain states.

.

Almost -- there is no "must". Trump can nominate anyone he damn well pleases from anywhere with any background whatsoever. He could nominate Kestryll for the 2nd Circuit or Rudy Giuliani for the 9th Circuit.

There is a "tradition" where a Senator from the appropriate state is given the privilege of approving of the nomination, and that's what Trump did with Bennett, but Trump was under no obligation to follow that tradition with Bennett, and he does not have to continue that tradition now. Even the New York Times called for the elimination of this tradition back when Obama was President.

Unless Trump has some serious, direct need for Senator X's vote on something very important, he should drop this stupid tradition like a bad habit. Anyone on this forum knows how critical the judiciary is, especially in this era of bullying progtard majorities who don't give a crap about civil rights or the Constitution.

The reason we are in this crapstorm in the first place is because the Rs were too stupid to do their jobs and fill the judiciary with real judges, all the while allowing the Ds to nominate activist judges by the dozen. The Rs need to use their brains for a change, start playing the game strategically, and that means using every advantage under the law.

Elections have consequences, Obama said, but there sure haven't been any consequences for the 9th from Trump's election, it's been business as usual, anti-2A morons, and that needs to change. Maybe Trump will get lucky with Bade, hopefully she's an originalist and her Senator was pleased to have her nominated so the "blue slip" tradition can be considered to have been followed, but that's the least of our concerns at this point.

Dan_Eastvale 08-28-2018 7:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarabellum (Post 21622158)
↑↑ This is the correct answer and deserves a sticky.

Absolutely. As said I do not believe the 2A is a top priority for him these days.A lot on his table right now domestically and internationally while under constant attack by those Democrats and prosecutors out for blood. His focus also needs to remain on doing what he can to achieve a positive midterm election.

Happy to be under the 10th Circuit.

CCWFacts 08-28-2018 7:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22049129)
Almost -- there is no "must". Trump can nominate anyone he damn well pleases from anywhere with any background whatsoever. He could nominate Kestryll for the 2nd Circuit or Rudy Giuliani for the 9th Circuit.

I believe you are mixing up two issues. One is blue slips, which, as you say, are a tradition, not a requirement. Trump has ignored blue slips before and he'll need to do it again for his California and Oregon appointments.

What, California and Oregon appointments? Why can't he pick anyone from anywhere? Why did he need a Hawaiian resident for a judge?

It's a separate issue, which is not a tradition, but rather a law:

. 28 U.S. Code § 44.
In each circuit (other than the Federal judicial circuit [DC]) there shall be at least one circuit judge in regular active service appointed from the residents of each state in that circuit
This is because there needs to be a federal circuit judge in every state to deal with matters in that state such as injunctions. The CA9 is in San Francisco but judges maintain offices in every state in the circuit. That means some judge seats must come from certain states.

Again, blue slips are a separate issue, which are a tradition, not a law, but 28 U.S. Code § 44 is a law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22049129)
There is a "tradition" where a Senator from the appropriate state is given the privilege of approving of the nomination, and that's what Trump did with Bennett, but Trump was under no obligation to follow that tradition with Bennett, and he does not have to continue that tradition now.

He had zero real choice with Bennett. There aren't enough conservative attorneys in Hawaii with the level of experience needed. Bennett was the one and only option. And he needed to be a Hawaii resident because of the law as I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22049129)
The Rs need to use their brains for a change, start playing the game strategically, and that means using every advantage under the law.

I agree with that!

speedrrracer 08-28-2018 11:25 AM

I never bothered to check and see that Clifton was the last Hawaiian in active status -- thanks for that, CCWFacts.

but yes, since there are other AZ judges still aboard the 9th, Trump could have nominated anyone to fill this vacancy. Sure, the person has to have established residency somewhere in the 9th, but that's trivial, (heck, we all managed it! ) so hopefully Bade will work out, otherwise Trump needs to be stacking the 9th with more than just one nominee from Idaho...

CCWFacts 08-28-2018 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22050056)
I never bothered to check and see that Clifton was the last Hawaiian in active status -- thanks for that, CCWFacts.

You're welcome!

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22050056)
but yes, since there are other AZ judges still aboard the 9th, Trump could have nominated anyone to fill this vacancy.

IANAL and very definitely I'm not an expert on federal circuit courts, but I don't think so... I think judges have duty stations and the appointment for a given duty station must also come from that area. It puts real limits on the options. Maybe someone who actually is well-informed could explain more. Here's the legal reference on duty stations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedrrracer (Post 22050056)
Sure, the person has to have established residency somewhere in the 9th, but that's trivial, (heck, we all managed it! ) so hopefully Bade will work out, otherwise Trump needs to be stacking the 9th with more than just one nominee from Idaho...

I don't think it works like this but maybe someone can explain better.

Judges have to do many things that are in their local areas. I think they spend most of their time in their duty station, not in SF.

dustoff31 08-28-2018 11:37 AM

I don't know anything about this judge, but she must have something going for her to go from Magistrate Judge straight to the Court of Appeals.

Paladin 08-28-2018 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22048414)
I can't help but think this timing is connected at least a little to McCain's death.

From the LA Times article I quoted above:

Quote:

In Arizona, where Trump doesn’t get along with either Republican senator, he’s held off on appointments, as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as of today Trump has nominated 3 people for 7 open CA9 judgeships. In chronological order of nominations:

1) Ryan D. Nelson (ID): nominated 2018 May 15; should be confirmed late 2018

2) Eric D. Miller (WA): nominated 2018 July 19

3) Bridget Shelton Bade (AZ): nominated 2018 Aug 27

Plus, we have one OR and three CA openings awaiting nominees.

ETA: See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ng_nominations

CCWFacts 08-28-2018 1:04 PM

Yup, he did the easy appointments (AZ, Idaho, and due to a quirk, Hawaii) first. The hard appointments (3 in California, 1 in Oregon) are still pending. I'm sure he's got a good strategy on this but I wish he would hurry up. I feel there's no guarantee the Republicans will keep the Senate in November, and if the Democrats get a majority, they won't confirm any more judges, at least not any judges that any of us want.

Paladin 08-28-2018 1:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22050422)
Yup, he did the easy appointments (AZ, Idaho, and due to a quirk, Hawaii) first.

HI has been confirmed. WA is the 3rd nominee now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22050422)
The hard appointments (3 in California, 1 in Oregon) are still pending. I'm sure he's got a good strategy on this but I wish he would hurry up. I feel there's no guarantee the Republicans will keep the Senate in November, and if the Democrats get a majority, they won't confirm any more judges, at least not any judges that any of us want.

If the earliest of the 3 (Nelson for ID) was nominated May 15th and won't be acted upon until late 2018, the other two, WA and AZ, may not be acted on this year.

If that's the case, the 1 OR and 3 CA vacancies certainly won't be acted upon this year and definitely not before the Nov election. IOW, regardless of who wins/holds the Senate in Nov, the 1 + 3 will be processed by the new Senate in the new year.

My *guess* is Trump will wait until after the Nov election to even make nominations for the 3 from CA and maybe the 1 from OR.

CCWFacts 08-28-2018 2:09 PM

What's the reason for the slowness on this? There's some chance of the Republicans losing the senate in November, and if that happens, is Trump going to be able to appoint anyone? It seems to me that the logical thing would be to rush these through now while we know it's possible. I must be missing something because obviously Trump and the Republicans have considered this issue.

Paladin 09-09-2018 9:45 AM

I do not know how many, if any, are for CA9, but ...

Quote:

But some liberal groups are complaining that other Democrats from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, on down haven’t been putting up enough of a fight.

“The Supreme Court is on the line, and you are failing us,” a letter from from 13 liberal groups, including the Women’s March, DailyKos, Friends of the Earth and Justice Democrats, to Schumer said.

The letter described Kavanaugh as “an extremist who will help institutionalize Trump’s hate for a generation.”

“Your job as Senate Democratic leader is to lead your caucus in complete opposition to Trump's attempted Supreme Court takeover and to defend everyone threatened by a Trump Supreme Court,” the letter said. “But unbelievably, nearly two dozen Democrats have still not come out against Kavanaugh, and just last week, you helped Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fast track 15 Trump judicial nominees. That is not the leadership we need.”

The letter does acknowledge that Schumer’s hands are tied to a large extent by the harsh realities of Senate math. Republicans need a simple majority and hold 51 Senate seats, meaning that Democrats are hoping that two Republicans -- namely moderate Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine -- break ranks.

But the letter indicates that the groups believe Schumer is not doing a good enough job whipping members to vote against Kavanaugh.
More at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ailing-us.html

green grunt 09-09-2018 10:08 AM

^"Schumer is not doing a good enough job whipping members"


Kind of like that statement .......

TempleKnight 09-09-2018 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22050643)
What's the reason for the slowness on this? There's some chance of the Republicans losing the senate in November, and if that happens, is Trump going to be able to appoint anyone? It seems to me that the logical thing would be to rush these through now while we know it's possible. I must be missing something because obviously Trump and the Republicans have considered this issue.

I thought that until recently Schumer was using procedural tactics on each nominee to take the maximum time. Something has changed and the dems are not happy with Schumer.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/177977...icial-nominees

Cincinnatus 09-09-2018 4:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22049285)
In each circuit (other than the Federal judicial circuit [DC]) there shall be at least one circuit judge in regular active service appointed from the residents of each state in that circuit
This is because there needs to be a federal circuit judge in every state to deal with matters in that state such as injunctions. The CA9 is in San Francisco but judges maintain offices in every state in the circuit. That means some judge seats must come from certain states.

Simple solution - have conservative judges move to Hawai'i, Oregon, California, nominate them, confirm them, install them, and BOHICA the Lefties. :D

CCWFacts 09-10-2018 7:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TempleKnight (Post 22094983)
I thought that until recently Schumer was using procedural tactics on each nominee to take the maximum time. Something has changed and the dems are not happy with Schumer.

Thanks for explanation, reading it. It will truly change things for us here in the 9th. We will have CCW in the near future if Trump can fill all the vacancies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cincinnatus (Post 22095008)
Simple solution - have conservative judges move to Hawai'i, Oregon, California, nominate them, confirm them, install them, and BOHICA the Lefties. :D

Yes, I thought of that too but it won't work like that. There also isn't a big pool of qualified judges ready to change residence for a chance of being confirmed to something. It won't work unfortunately.

Cincinnatus 09-10-2018 7:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22096724)
Yes, I thought of that too but it won't work like that. There also isn't a big pool of qualified judges ready to change residence for a chance of being confirmed to something. It won't work unfortunately.

Has it been tried? If it hasn't been tried, then give it a shot. What have we got to lose, besides our freedoms? :D

Blade Gunner 09-11-2018 9:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paladin (Post 21563508)
Since we already have a "SCOTUS watch" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...1#post21060351), I thought I'd start one for CA9 since most RKBA cases don't make it to SCOTUS. (Yeah, understatement of the year...) Just post any news/rumors in the press re. appointments/retirements/public statements (re. the 2nd A RKBA), by nominees or judges for CA9 with a link.

From: http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/

ETA: Status of vacancies and nominees for CA9 as of 2018 Aug 27:

In chronological order of nominations:

1) Ryan D. Nelson (ID): nominated 2018 May 15; should be confirmed late 2018

2) Eric D. Miller (WA): nominated 2018 July 19

3) Bridget Shelton Bade (AZ): nominated 2018 Aug 27

Plus, we have one OR and three CA openings awaiting nominees.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ng_nominations

For those of us behind enemy lines, pro 2A appointments to the 9th circus appeals court is the quickest way to get out from under this oppressive state government. I mentioned this in the SCOTUS watch post at the beginning of Trump’s Presidency and was meet with much skepticism. Defeating these anti 2A laws at the 9th saves time, money, and uncertainty that SCOTUS will even cert an appeal.

Go Navy 10-09-2018 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah (Post 21565962)
Democrats are trying to stall all the nominees until after the November election. They are counting on re-taking the Senate and therefore blocking all Trump's nominees.

Remember, the current Senate is in office until Jan. 2. Mitch McConnell is marching through these nominees and won't be stopped until then; the way some of the Senate races look right now, the Repubs may retain a majority.

CCWFacts 10-11-2018 2:58 PM

Article in the LA times today.
“I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," Feinstein said in a statement.
That's right Senator Feinstein. For so many years, compromises has always meant, Democrats get some of what they want, Republicans get none of what they want. Now finally Republicans are figuring out, we need to take what we want.

This is really great news for us, especially with all these cases we have just entering the en banc cycle.

Go Navy 10-11-2018 4:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCWFacts (Post 22214668)
Article in the LA times today.
“I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested," Feinstein said in a statement.
That's right Senator Feinstein. For so many years, compromises has always meant, Democrats get some of what they want, Republicans get none of what they want. Now finally Republicans are figuring out, we need to take what we want.

This is really great news for us, especially with all these cases we have just entering the en banc cycle.

Translation: "controversial candidates" means conservative candidates. The 9th Circus is the most far left Federal Appellate court in the nation by all accounts, so we need to salt it with some conservative judges to balance things out.

thorium 10-11-2018 11:04 PM

Trump got a 9th circuit judge approved today. Ryan Nelson.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...p-early-recess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_D._Nelson

Noble Cause 10-12-2018 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thorium (Post 22216216)

Nomination of Ryan Nelson to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit Questions for the Record

July 18, 2018
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo...0to%20QFRs.pdf


4. In Justice Stevens’s dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller he wrote: “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.”

a. Do you agree with Justice Stevens? Why or why not?
The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is binding precedent, and I would fully and faithfully follow it if fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Ninth Circuit. As a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate to offer any personal view on any Supreme Court opinion, including any dissenting opinion of a particular Justice.

b. Did Heller leave room for common-sense gun regulation?
In Heller, the Court explained that the “right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” and, although “not undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in [the Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” 554 U.S. 570, 626-27 (2008).

c. Did Heller, in finding an individual right to bear arms, depart from decades of Supreme Court precedent?
The majority and dissenting opinions in Heller discussed and debated the scope and applicability of the Supreme Court’s prior decisions interpreting the Second Amendment, including United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Compare Heller, 554 U.S. at 621-25 (majority opinion’s discussion of Miller), with id. at 676-79 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (principal dissenting opinion’s discussion of Miller). Beyond observing this aspect of the opinions in Heller, please see my response above to question 4(a)

======= End of Transcripts =========


I only did a cursory check, there could be more regarding 2A.

Another possible indicator, admittedly small, is he attended
Brigham Young University, and Utah tends to be Pro Gun.


Noble

not-fishing 10-12-2018 5:42 AM

So the 9th has 29 judges according to wiki.

I wonder if Trump will be able to appoint say 15 or those.......

ajb78 10-12-2018 6:09 AM

Still lots to fill in the 9th circus
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content..._id=0000000899
Quote:

Updated September 6, 2018

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships. There are 7 current vacancies. The duration of the current vacancies ranges from 1,000 days to 26 days. The president has made 3 nominations.

Ninth Circuit district courts are authorized 112 judgeships. There are currently 19 vacancies with 2 future vacancies announced. The duration of the current vacancies ranges from 1,497 to 37 days. The president has made 3 nominations. The president has announced his “intent to nominate” candidates for two judicial vacancies in the Western District of Washington, but official nomination papers have not been submitted.

All of the current vacancies on the court of appeals and 13 of the 19 district court vacancies are considered judicial emergencies based on criteria established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Go Navy 10-12-2018 6:54 AM

Thanks to the Kentucky Fox, Mitch McConnell, for another smart chess move. He has been trashed by a lot of conservatives, but all the while he's maneuvering with a Senate that he really doesn't control. I think he has been unfairly criticized by some on the right. Disclosure: I'm a Goldwater/Reagan conservative.

Raise a glass of that fine Kentucky bourbon, Sen. McConnell, for a job well done.

bigcasino 10-12-2018 7:22 AM

Democrats agree to confirmations of 15 Trump judges

Looks like Mitch McConnell was able to strike a deal and get 15 more judges confirmed before midterms!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

Blade Gunner 10-12-2018 8:11 AM

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...th-circuit.amp

Looks like there might be a ray of hope

baggss 10-12-2018 10:37 AM

Quote:

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told the caucus that she opposed the deal, the lone Democrat to voice displeasure, according to a person briefed on the meeting.
Of curse she did. She's in no danger of losing her seat so what does she care? She all about posturing for 2020 and could care less about her fellow party members who are facing a huge red backlash at home...


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.