9th Circuit Court

Ginsburg eviscerates 9th Circuit’s handling of immigration consultant’s case

Authoring a unanimous Supreme Court opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tore into the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for “drastically” straying from judicial norms when hearing a case involving a California immigration consultant. After Evelyn Sineneng-Smith had been convicted of violating a federal law related to encouraging illegal immigration, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, not based on arguments presented by Sineneng-Smith, but by third parties the court brought in to submit arguments that the panel of judges themselves had suggested. “[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, later stating that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.” The Supreme Court sent the case back down the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by the parties.” Sineneng-Smith had been convicted of violating a federal law against someone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” if they know they would be in the country illegally. That was after she charged clients who sought to apply for labor certifications to obtain legal status, prosecutors said, even though she knew they could not meet the application deadlines. She argued that her conduct was not covered by the statute, and if it was it would be a violation of her First Amendment rights. After both sides submitted briefs and held oral arguments, the Ninth Circuit panel — instead of deciding the case at that point — invited the Federal Defender Organizations of the Ninth Circuit, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild to file briefs. The Ninth Circuit specifically outlined issues for them to discuss, including whether the law in question was unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment — an issue separate from any of Sineneng-Smith’s arguments. They also gave the organizations 20 minutes to present oral arguments, compared to just 10 for Sineneng-Smith’s lawyers. The Ninth Circuit ended up overturning Sineneng-Smith’s conviction based on the idea that the law was overbroad under the First Amendment. Ginsburg wrote that the Ninth Circuit’s actions undermined the principle that parties and their counsels are responsible for presenting their own case. “There are no doubt circumstances in which a modest initiating role for a court is appropriate,” Ginsburg wrote. “But this case scarcely fits that bill.”

You know its bad when the Supremes issue a unanimous decision.  That, in and of itself, is a smackdown.  We very rarely agree with Justice Ginsburg.  But, ya gotta give credit where credit is due…and it is here.  The lunatics at the 9th CIRCUS Court of Appeals in San Francisco (go figure) are the most overturned federal appeals circuit court.  President Trump is desperately trying to get a few quality judges on that bench before he leaves office.

9th Circuit Court sides with Trump administration on banning Title X funds for abortion

A federal appeals court refused Thursday to block the Trump administration’s Title X family-planning rules from taking effect, keeping in place newly instated requirements preventing grant recipients from referring clients for abortions. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a plea from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, to impose an emergency stay after lifting June 20 preliminary injunctions ordered by lower courts in California, Oregon and Washington. In February, the Department of Health and Human Services overhauled rules governing Title X grants for family-planning services to low-income patients, prohibiting recipients from using the funds to “perform, promote, refer to, or support abortion as a method of family planning.” The rule change could cost Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, as much as $60 million per year, although the Title X grants represent only a small percentage of the organization’s half-billion in annual federal funding. Pro-life groups cheered the court for standing by its earlier ruling. All seven of the judges who voted to deny the emergency stay were appointed by Republicans—including two chosen by President Trump—while the four who voted in the minority were named by Democrats. “This is a victory for commonsense, life-affirming policy,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “The Protect Life rule ensures that the people helping women plan for families are not misusing appointments to market abortions at taxpayer expense.” She added that “Title X had become a marketing slush fund for Planned Parenthood, and the Trump Administration and the American people won today.” The Title X overhaul opened the door for pro-life pregnancy centers to receive funds by removing the requirement for “nondirective counseling on abortion.” In March, the Obria Group of California became the first such center to receive a Title X grant. The rule also requires a “clear financial and physical separation” between abortion procedures and other family-planning services, a mandate scheduled to take effect in March 2020. Planned Parenthood blasted the court’s refusal to block “the Title X gag rule,” calling it “devastating.” “This is devastating news,” said Planned Parenthood president Leana Wen. “While we are incredibly concerned the panel did not recognize the harm of the Trump-Pence administration’s gag rule, we will not stop fighting for the millions across the country in need for care.” Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life, said that abortion “is neither health care nor family planning and therefore should not be funded by the Title X program.” “This regulation helps to get taxpayers out of the abortion business, without cutting resources for those in need, and is a victory for all Americans,” she said.

Agreed 100!  This is a victory for all hard-working American tax payers.  To be clear, this isn’t about abortion, or outlawing it…or anything like that.  It’s simply a rare common-sense ruling by the otherwise left-leaning 9th Circuit agreeing with the Trump Administrations prohibition against using Title X funds for abortions.  That’s it.  And, it’s about time.  It’s hopefully the first step in stopping ALL federal tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood entirely.  And, again, this has NOTHING to do with abortions, or their legality.  It’s simply about forcing tax-payers to pay for them; a large percentage of whom have moral objections to such procedures.  If someone wants to undergo that procedure, that’s their business.  But, the rest of us shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.  That’s the bottom line.  I don’t say this very often..but..  Kudos to the 9th Circuit Court for this decision.

Trump judicial nominee confirmed to 9th Circuit Court over Democratic objections

In a 52-45 party-line vote Wednesday, the Senate confirmed President Trump’s nominee to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The confirmation of California lawyer Kenneth Lee marked the first time neither home-state senator had returned a blue slip, a Senate tradition in which the home-state senator gives their opinion of the nominee, the Hill reported. Neither Sen. Dianne Feinstein nor Sen. Kamala Harris, both California Democrats, returned a blue slip on Lee’s nomination to the San Francisco-based court. Lee, 43, a native of South Korea, is a past special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a Twitter message, Feinstein cited Lee’s writings on race and civil rights as reasons for her opposition. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., agreed that Lee holds “shocking” positions on race and women’s reproductive rights. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., called Lee “a man of high character” and a brilliant lawyer. The two attended law school together. “Lee’s record shows that he is far outside the legal mainstream,” Feinstein said, according to the Washington Times. Lee wrote in 1994 that gay people have a higher incidence of AIDS because they are more “promiscuous” than straight people. “Nine out of 10 people with AIDS are gay or drug users,” he wrote. He said he was “embarrassed” by that position during his confirmation hearing and that he had matured since then, according to the Hill. In another article, he questioned why a woman would continue working for a man who had assaulted her “just so she can hold on to a part-time job.” In his confirmation hearing, he said at the time of the writing that he didn’t understand workplace dynamics, according to the Hill. Lee’s nomination marks Trump’s 40th circuit judge appointment since taking office.

For more on this nomination of Kenneth Lee, click on the text above.

Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges. Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators. But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.” GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Sacramento Bee reported that White House officials had been negotiating with Feinstein and Harris about the appointments earlier in the year, but the dialogue collapsed over the summer. Any working relationship is likely only to have soured further after Harris and Feinstein led the charge on the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In particular, Trump and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until after the hearings were over. Both Feinstein and Harris voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, joined by all but one Democratic senator. Feinstein and Harris reacted angrily to the news of the latest appointments. Feinstein said in a statement that she had been prepared to accept a reported White House proposal of three other judges. She said she opposed both Collins and Lee — who she said had failed to disclose his “controversial writings” on voting rights and affirmative action. “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,” she said in a statement. “Instead of working with our office to identify consensus nominees for the 9th Circuit, the White House continues to try to pack the courts with partisan judges who will blindly support the president’s agenda, instead of acting as an independent check on this administration,” Harris spokeswoman Lily Adams told The Sacramento Bee. Even with the nominations, it would not result in more Republican appointees than Democrat appointees. The Los Angeles Times reports that the approval Thursday of Idaho attorney Ryan Nelson brings the number of Republican appointees to 10 and, if Trump filled all the current openings, it would be 13 Republican appointees to 16 Democratic appointees. The move comes amid a more aggressive push by Republicans to fill vacancies in the federal courts. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday that he wanted the Senate to stay in session until all of the 49 currently pending judicial appointments are confirmed. “Lots of work to do,” Grassley tweeted. “Senate [should] stay in session til all 49 judges are CONFIRMED/ work comes [before] campaigning.” Grassley has suggested in the past that the “blue slip” process has been abused to block otherwise qualified nominees. In a late 2017 floor speech, the senator said colleagues should not “block a nominee because it’s not the person the senator would’ve picked.” He said the White House should “consult” home-state senators and “make that call” in the end.

Agreed..under normal circumstances.  But, things are NOT normal.  Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris (D-CA) did NOT act in good faith during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.  Feinstein politicized the whole Dr. Ford sham, and knowingly undermined the process; holding on to that letter for weeks instead of turning it over to the committee.  She will likely be investigated for her acts.  Then there was Harris’ grandstanding and walking out of the hearing.  She’s running for president.  Her self-righteous, hypocritical grandstanding was nauseating.  So, kudos to President Trump for just moving forward with these important nominations.  Glad to see him punch back against these obnoxious liberal Democratic Senators from California who, again, continue to NOT act in good faith.

Liberal 9th Circuit surprises with pro-2nd Amendment decision blocking California ammo ban

Second Amendment activists were given a surprise boost this week when the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals backed a lower court’s decision to suspend California’s ban on the possession of large magazines. Activists, supported by the National Rifle Association, have argued that the state’s ban on ownership of magazines holding 10 bullets or more is unconstitutional. They won a preliminary injunction by a San Diego district court last year, and a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit backed that injunction Tuesday. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction or by concluding that magazines fall within the scope of the Second Amendment. “The district court did not abuse its discretion by applying the incorrect level of scrutiny,” the judges also found. “The district court concluded that a ban on ammunition magazines is not a presumptively lawful regulation and that the prohibition did not have a ‘historical pedigree.'” “This is a significant win for law-abiding gun owners in California,” Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “This unconstitutional law criminalizes mere possession of many standard capacity magazines and would instantly turn many law-abiding gun owners into criminals.”

Agreed!  A small, but welcome, rare pro-gun victory for the law-abiding gun owners in California.