Ninth Circuit Trifecta: Supreme Court reverses the most liberal circuit court three times in a day

Wall St Journal ^ | November 6, 2002

[SJackson]

We don't know if it's a record, but the Supreme Court on Monday reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not once, not twice, but three times. Three reversals in a single day is a remarkable accomplishment even by the exalted standards of the Ninth Circuit, the most reversed federal court in the land.

[Maelstrom]

The whole DNC idea was to extend the 9th Circuit's current "balance" to the rest of the nation.

They'll try to filibuster any court nominees now.

[anniegetyourgun]

9th circuit jesters are never funny. Thanks for posting the good news.

[Thane_Banquo]

So can we assume the Democratic Senate will start confirming conservatives for that court?

Just updating this to reflect our bitchslap of the Democrats last night.

[GATOR NAVY]

The good news just keeps on coming. The Number One thing I want to see out of the new Senate? Conservative judges confirmed. Resubmit Pickering!

[Conservative Kay]

"Well, the latest Supreme Court smackdown shows that it is hard to be further "outside the mainstream" than the Ninth Circuit. So can we assume the Democratic Senate will start confirming conservatives for that court?"

I think they definition of "mainstream" changed last night.

[Amore]

Extra happy news-- not just legislative good news but judicial!
Yes, resubmit Judge Pickering!

[GATOR NAVY]

They'll try to filibuster any court nominees now.

Bring it on. I want to hear them try to justify that any nominee Bush submits is so dangerous to the country that it requires shutting down the Senate. They will look like total asses.

[Real Cynic No More]

So can we assume the Democratic Senate will start confirming conservatives for that court?

Democrat Senate? What $%^&#@$& Democratic Senate?

[roderick]

They'll try to filibuster any court nominees now.

Let 'em try. My only fear is that Bush does not immediately use the power we gave him. Dump Lott.

[JimVT]

I just tried 4 different links to the U.S. Senate Judiciary committee and each one was "down."

I wonder if Leahy is pouting and doesn't want any mail!

[logic]

They already have been ASSES for the last two years, why would they change now!!!!

[PatrioticAmerican]

Excellent news in all the great election news, but worth paying attention to. The 9th should be presecuted.

[Paleo Conservative]

They'll try to filibuster any court nominees now.

I doubt they have the votes for that even now. The RATS held up nominations in committee. If they had actually reached the floor, they would have been confirmed. I think they would have gotten 65+ votes. Others would have gotten 70 - 80 votes.

[lepton]

Do they need to be resubmitted? Were they actually withdrawn?

[Psycho Francis]

BTW, the cases in question were:

11/04 02-137 Woodford v. Visciotti PC 537/1
11/04 02-29 INS v. Orlando Ventura PC 537/1
11/04 01-1765 Early v. Packer PC 537/1

INS v. Orlando Ventura is consistent with the 11th Circuit's Opinion in the case of Elian Gonzalez v. Reno, et al, June, 2000 (exec branch has vast authority & discretion in immigration cases).

[votelife]

Dear President Bush, With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.