President Trump Is 'Absolutely' Considering Breaking Up the Ninth Circuit Court

Time ^ | Apr. 26, 2017 | Aric Jenkins

[Innovative]

President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that he is considering splitting up the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit after its recent rulings that have blocked two of his executive orders.

"There are many people that want to break up the Ninth Circuit. It's outrageous," Trump said to the Washington Examiner in an interview at the White House. "Everybody immediately runs to the Ninth Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the Ninth Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic."

[RegulatorCountry]

Pining for the Cruzian Fjords again, I see.

[nathanbedford]

A spectator called out, "give' Hell, Harry." Truman, without missing a beat responded, I am just telling them the truth and they think I am giving them hell."

I am just reciting facts.

[RegulatorCountry]

You’re not reciting, you’re positively trilling. Cruz has demonstrated that he just does not have the presence or personality to be President. Had he somehow managed to have been the nominee, we would be dealing with Madame President right now. Go ahead, trill some more, pat yourself on the back. And to think, I once enjoyed your replies on FR.

[nathanbedford]

In my reply #81 I recited nine (count them) different facts.

You allege:

"You’re not reciting, you’re positively trilling."

Not surprisingly, you do not dispute a single one of the nine recited facts, rather you deny that they were even recited. In the same breath you accuse me of "trilling" but you do not deal with the recited facts. No, you launch into opinion about Cruz, which we have no way of testing, that is, no way of determining whether your assertion is a fact. In the next breath you attack me.

All of this is a way of accusing me of " trilling." The reader will not be surprised if I am mystified at the charge so I looked up the meaning of the word "trilling" and find it has to do with "warbling." I am a loss to understand how a recital of nine facts is warbling.

Suppose I accuse you of hypocrisy or confusion, or both.

[RegulatorCountry]

Tedium. Why is that that Nathan Bedford Forest cameo of yours starting to look crosseyed to me?

[nathanbedford]

THE GATHERING STORM

Thus, then, on the night of the tenth of May, at the outset of this mighty battle, I acquired the chief power in the State, which henceforth I wielded in ever-growing measure for five years and three months of world war…During these last crowded days of the political crisis my pulse had not quickened at any moment. I took it all as it came. But I cannot conceal from the reader of this truthful account that as I went to bed at about 3.a.m., I was conscious of a profound sense of relief. At last I had the authority to give directions over the whole scene. I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial. Eleven years in the political wilderness had freed me from ordinary Party antagonisms. My warnings over the last six years and been so numerous, so detailed, and were now so terribly vindicated, that no one could gainsay me. I could not be reproached either for making the war or with want of preparation for it. I thought I knew a good deal about it all, and I was sure I should not fail. Therefore, although impatient for the morning, I slept soundly and had not need for cheering dreams.

Facts are better than dreams.

Better than dreams, facts which so far in this discussion at least are anathema to you, are also better than personal invective, hypocrisy and confusion.

[McGavin999]

The congress needs to get off their backsides and work with the executive to reduce the 9th circuit to a very small area. The judges who are assigned to the 9th circus can not transfer to the new districts.

Congress also needs to pass bills stating ALL federal grants are contingent on being in compliance with ALL federal laws and if they are not any and all grants can be revoked if compliance is not met.

[refreshed]

It just looked like it was made for a flag on a stick, that’s all.

[Yosemitest]

Read Professor Prakash and Professor Smith's accompanying Pocket Part essay, Removing Federal Judges WITHOUT Impeachment.
Here's the abstract:

Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith
116 Yale L.J. 72 (2006)

Most everyone assumes that impeachment is the only means of removing federal judges
and that the Constitution's grant of good-behavior tenure is an implicit reference to impeachment.
This Article challenges that conventional wisdom.
Using evidence from England, the colonies, and the revolutionary state constitutions, the Article demonstrates that at the Founding, good-behavior tenure and impeachment had only the most tenuous of relationships.
Good-behavior tenure was forfeitable upon a judicial finding of misbehavior.
There would have to be a trial, the hearing of witnesses, and the introduction of evidence, with misbehavior proved by the party seeking to oust the tenured individual.
Contrary to what many might suppose, judges were not the only ones who could be granted good-behavior tenure.
Anything that might be held--land, licenses, employment, etc.--could be granted during good behavior, and private parties could grant good-behavior tenure to other private individuals.
Impeachment, by contrast, referred to a criminal procedure conducted in the legislature that could lead to an array of criminal sanctions.
In England and in the colonies, impeachment was never seen as a means of judging whether someone with good-behavior tenure had forfeited her tenure by reason of misbehavior.
Whether a landholder, employee, or government officer with good-behavior tenure had misbehaved would be determined in the ordinary courts of law.
Moreover, the vast majority of state constitutions did not equate good-behavior tenure with impeachment either.
To the contrary, many distinguished them explicitly.
Taken together, these propositions devastate the conventional conflation of good-behavior tenure with impeachment.
More importantly, they indicate that the original Constitution did NOT render impeachment THE ONLY possible means of removing federal judges with good-behavior tenure.
Given the long tradition of adjudicating misbehavior in the ordinary courts,
Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law.

[ConservativeMind]

I'm sure that was a slip, as you were referencing the Trump Administration, but let's proceed.

“Issue DACA cards.” — Still happening until more major things are negotiated.

“Pursue the suits against religious liberty (Sisters of Charity).” — 98 days isn't enough and this is on that liberal Sessions guy that Cruz loves.

“Attacked conservative congressman who resisted funding Planned Parenthood.” — Stoppage of a deal to move plans meant for additional positioning is counter-productive for conservatives and Trump. We can work on Ryan to cut those funds later.

“Declared Iran to be in compliance with the deal.” — Positioning for today

“Declining to prosecute Hillary.” — This is on either that liberal Sessions or Congress itself.

“Placing Goldman Sachs personnel in charge.” — Trump is actually in charge, but, yes, many liberals have a problem with Steve Bannon’s past, but most conservatives don't care.

“Keeping Janet Yeltsin at the Fed.” — Congress needs to get rid of her.

“Admitted it offered China advantageous trade relations in exchange for support on North Korea.” — Trump only offered that it was a part of coming negotiations, not that this ended them.

[joe fonebone]

how about fairbanks alaska?

[45Auto]

You make a very good case for the exercise of the Second Amendment....

[xzins]

Nothing in the constitution gives power to the president in terms of initiating the breakup of an appeals court.

Like you point out, he’d have to sign any legislation. He would nominate any judges for that court.

[JohnBrowdie]

I forget the name of the justice that crossed the fence, but he did it well in advance of the packing attempt.

It’s deceiving because the decision wasn’t read until after the packing attempt.

[Candor7]

You make a very good case for the exercise of the Second Amendment....>>>>>>>>>>

In our country, every citizen has a duty to enforce the constitution. If it all gets that far, I am sure the judiciary will not be disappointed by the fact that we have a 2nd amendment. I have no doubt that it would make their lives rather exciting.

[ConservativeMind]

Yellen’s term expires February 3, 2018:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors

You are right that Trump can let her go, but he must have “cause.”

Is that battle to kick her out a couple months early more important than the rest of your list?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This president is simply not doing anything positive that he promised.

He already put Gorsuch on SCOTUS. Assuming the new justice lives up to his billing, and that he is joined by others from the list as the opportunity arises, that by itself is worth the election.

And he has done much more, naming a cabinet that essentially all conservatives respect. Including EPA and Energy secretary.

NeverHillary.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Yes, we can use Article V to amend the Constitution.

Perhaps we can add an amendment that the right to bear arms won’t be infringed and another so that we have freedom of speech.

/sarc

The right use of Article V would be to institute term limits. That is something which would never pass Congress, so the convention method is uniquely suited to it. And term limits would be impossible to finesse; everyone in the country would know if it was being violated. Just as much as the requirement for Congress to stand for reelection every two years - there is no wiggle room in between obeying that rule, and transgressing it.

Term limits should also ban pensions for Congressmen and Senators, and should stipulate a minimum age requirement so that only people with actual resumes need apply. Well, I’ll give you Senator Sanders as a counterexample . . .

[ConservativeMind]

By the way, I have sucessfully refuted multiple “facts” you listed.

[nathanbedford]

As I said in my initial reply to you,

"Yes on this issue and many others but not all, I would prefer to have Ted who, I believe, recanted before the election concerning the number of H1B visas and did so publicly and not deceptively after he is elected as Trump did with DACA."

In fact research reveals I was right, Ted Cruz did reverse his position publicly and forthrightly:

"Ted Cruz initially supported the H1B program, to promote productivity and job growth, and even suggested a 500% quota increase, but now favors the exact opposite: a suspension of the entire program for 180 days. " ( https://organizationsandsocialchange.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/will-u-s-tech-jobs-turn-all-indian-the-h1b-visa-dilemma/ ) So which would you rather have, the continuation of DACA which Trump and his deception has brought you or Ted Cruz who would have suspended the entire program for 180 days? I await an answer.

Your response to my noting the placing of Goldman Sachs in places of authority in the government was limited, he has appointed at least five in violation of his campaign preachments:

Trump was critical of Goldman Sachs during his campaign and quick to connect his opponents to Wall Street.

"I know the guys at Goldman Sachs. They have total, total control over him,” Trump said of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a rally in South Carolina last year. "Just like they have total control over Hillary Clinton.”

Trump names another Goldman Sachs executive to senior administration role

The article says:

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, to whom Donovan will report in his post, and White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon are both former Goldman executives.

Gary Cohn, who was Goldman chief operating officer, now serves as director of the White House National Economic Council. Trump picked Goldman’s head of impact investing, Dina Powell, to be the White House senior counselor for economic initiatives.

And we are supposed to prefer Trump over Cruz on this issue because Cruz wife works for Goldman Sachs?

There are arguments on both sides about whether H1B visas, properly policed to avoid abuse are good or bad for the American economy which might be a different question than whether they are good or bad for a specie of employees but there is no question that their time in the country is limited whereas outsourcing of the same jobs is not and which represent a far greater threat to American employees. Moreover, DACA recipients of a Trump issued DACA card are here forever usually at our expense, educated at our expense, hospitalized at our expense, and taking jobs at the expense of citizens.