President Trump May Be About To Flip The Ninth Circuit

One area in which the election of Donald Trump has paid off in spades is that of judicial appointments. So far, the president has had two Supreme Court appointments and numerous picks for lower courts. Now, a series of appointments may be about to remake one of the most liberal federal courts in the country, the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction for the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well as the territories of Guam and the Mariana Islands.  The Ninth Circuit is infamous among conservatives for its controversial decisions and being one of the most overturned courts in the country by the Supreme Court.  

Yesterday, the White House announced the appointment of seven new judges. Three of these new judges are destined for the Ninth Circuit while the other four will go to the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Two of the new nominees to the Ninth Circuit, Daniel P. Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee, were appointed last year and blocked by Democrats. The third appointee is Daniel A. Bress, who is being nominated to a federal judgeship for the first time. All three appointees are considered to be experienced constitutionalists.

The third appointee from last year, Patrick J. Bumatay, was shifted to the California Central District along with Stanley Blumenfeld, Jeremy B. Rosen, and Mark C. Scarsi. Bumatay is an openly gay Filipino-American whose appointment drew fire from California Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. His renomination to a lower court represents a small concession to his opposition.  

The appointments came after numerous conservative outlets had criticized the president for slow-walking appointments to the Ninth Circuit. Earlier this month, President Trump renominated 51 appointees from last year but the Ninth Circuit nominees were absent from the least, fueling speculation that the president had made a deal with Sen. Feinstein.

The Ninth Circuit currently has six vacancies. If the three appointees are confirmed by the Senate, the balance of the court will be 13 Republican-appointed and 16 Democrat-appointed judges. Although judges do not always rule in accordance with the wishes of their party, more Republican-appointed judges would bring balance to a court that is considered extreme and temper some of its rulings.

It is possible that two more appointments to the court could give conservatives a majority on the Ninth Circuit. This does not mean that all cases coming through the Ninth Circuit would be heard by a conservative majority, however. Some cases are heard by a single judge or a three-judge panel. Others are heard by an en banc court, which usually means that all judges hear the case. Due to the large size of the Ninth Circuit, however, en banc cases are heard by a panel of 11 randomly selected judges, which could give Democrats a majority.

The current crop of appointments still has to be confirmed by the Senate, however. Democrats removed the filibuster for appeals and district court nominees in 2013, but there are still ways to slow the confirmation process. Last year, Democrats insisted on 30 hours of floor debate and withholding blue slips, approval of judicial appointees by their home state senators. In 2018, Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee broke tradition by holding hearings for appointees that did not have a blue slip from either of their state’s senators. This makes it more difficult for the opposition party to block nominees.

Much of Donald Trump’s presidency has been a mixed bag for conservatives, but, giving credit where credit is due, his judicial appointments have shifted the balance of the federal judiciary back toward the Constitution and the rule of law. That will be a legacy that lasts long beyond President Trump’s tenure and it is a very good thing for the country. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Poll: Democrats ready to jettison courts

A stunning new poll released today by Rasmussen found that a relative majority of Democrats believe that President Obama should be able to ignore federal courts. The February 20 poll comes as the Obama Administration faces a host of legal obstacles which include a federal judge’s injunction against the president’s executive immigration amnesty and a high-profile challenge to the Affordable Care Act, “Obamacare,” in the Supreme Court.

Rasmussen reports that nearly half of Democrats, 43 percent, “believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts.” This was a plurality, also called a relative majority, since only 35 percent of Democrats opposed having President Obama ignore the courts.

Democrats were starkly out of step with the rest of the country on the issue. Among likely U.S. voters, only 26 percent wanted the president to ignore the courts. Sixty percent felt that the president should listen to and abide by court rulings. Not surprisingly, 81 percent of Republicans felt that Mr. Obama should listen to the courts.

The poll further found that 52 percent believe that legal challenges and judicial review of laws help to protect the rights of U.S. citizens. By an almost two-to-one margin (59 to 31 percent), voters believe that preserving the Constitution’s checks-and-balances is more important than having the government operate more efficiently.

In recent years, President Obama has been rebuked by the courts for executive overreach on several occasions. Two of the highest profile cases decided against the president include a court’s rejection of his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the decision that the Obamacare mandate that private employers provide contraceptive and abortifacient drugs was a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Meet the candidates: Georgia judicial elections 2010

Have you ever gotten to the end of your ballot while voting and had no idea who any of the judicial candidates were? If so, you are not alone. For most people, voting for a judge is a shot in the dark since the judicial elections are nonpartisan, there are no debates, and little campaigning.

You can get an idea by looking at a sample ballot before going to the polls. You can get a sample ballot for your precinct by visiting the website of the Secretary of State: http://sos.georgia.gov/mvp/. The sample ballot contains the names and websites, if any, of the candidates.

One of the most striking ways to differ between judicial candidates is through their judicial philosophy. Generally, judges either fall into one of two camps. Judicial activists, who bring their own opinions and experiences to the bench, or strict constructionists, who rule based on the law as it is written and focus on the intent of legislature.

In spite of the low key nature of the judicial campaigns, voting for a judge is important. As we have seen in recent months and years, judges can overturn popular laws and policies on dubious grounds and shape our nation and state with little accountability. Georgia’s voter ID law, gay marriage and the upcoming legal battle over Obamacare are just a few recent examples.

Supreme Court of Georgia:

David Nahmias is the incumbent. You can view his website at: www.justicenahmias.com. You can also view his biography on the Supreme Court website: http://www.gasupreme.us/biographies/nahmias.php. Nahmias is a former US Attorney nominated by George W. Bush who received numerous commendations for his service. He states that his judicial philosophy is that “if judges do not like a law, they can vote to change it at the ballot box, like their fellow citizens, but they should not try to change it with judicial decrees”.

Matt Wilson is a practicing attorney from Atlanta. His website is: http://wilsonforsupremecourt.com/. He states that his judicial philosophy is “to uphold and defend the Constitutions of this State and of our United States, to listen courteously to all parties and all arguments, to fairly and impartially decide cases presented on the basis of the evidence and our laws, while always protecting our civil and Constitutional rights”. He criticizes Justice Nahmias for decisions that “elevate Corporate and Government Interests over Individual Rights”.

Tammy Lynn Adkins is an attorney with no address or website given.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

The election is nonpartisan. There are twelve judges on the court. Three of these positions are up for election this year. Two incumbents, Harris Adams and Anne Elizabeth Barnes, are running unopposed. There are six candidates running to fill the seat of Edward Johnson, who is retiring.

James Babaloa (http://www.jamesbabalola.com/) is an attorney and Air Force veteran. Babaloa also serves as CEO and legal counsel for Quality Renters LLC, a management company for rental houses and apartments. He states, “I will not make policy decisions as a judge on issues that should be properly left by the text of the United States Constitution and the text of the Constitution of the State of Georgia to the executive and legislative branches of government.”

Antoinette “Toni” Davis (www.votetoni.com) is also an attorney. Davis has served in many legal capacities. She served as the UGA law school’s Director of Legal Research and Writing, an attorney for the Georgia Supreme Court, and as a private practice attorney. She says, “My decision to serve arises from my desire to join with those who believe that our judges should apply the laws passed by their representatives in a manner consistent with the values of the people of this state.”

Stan Gunter (http://www.votestangunter.com/) is currently in his third term as District Attorney for the judicial circuit that contains Union, Towns, White, and Lumpkin counties. Gunter says that his judicial philosophy is summed up by Deuteronomy 1:17: “Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike.” He adds “the role of a judge is to apply the law and not legislate from the bench.” Stan is the only candidate for the Court of Appeals that does not live in the Atlanta area.

Adrienne Hunter-Strothers (http://www.adriennehunterstrothers2010.com/) is also an attorney from Atlanta. She is a graduate of Harvard Law and began her career as an attorney in New York City before returning to Georgia to work for one of the state’s largest law firms. She writes that she “not only will apply the law as written to the individual facts of a particular case, she will strive also to prepare written decisions that create predictability and fairness in the law for everyone.”

Chris McFadden (www.mcfaddenforappealscourt.com) is an appellate attorney who wrote a leading reference book on Georgia appeals. He was voted most qualified for the Court of Appeals by the Georgia State Bar Association. McFadden writes in his blog that “the duty of a judge faced with a question of statutory interpretation is to make an honest effort to figure out what the legislature was trying to accomplish.”

David Schaeffer (http://schaefferforcourtofappeals.com/) is also an attorney. He has worked with the same private law firm in Atlanta where he has been a partner since 1987. He says, “I believe a judge should rigorously uphold a fair and independent approach to the law, applying the law to the facts to reach a well-reasoned result and not to begin with a preordained result and then try to justify it.”

For more information, please visit the candidate websites or contact them directly.

Sources:

http://sos.georgia.gov/mvp/
http://www.work.com/georgia-courts-and-judges-12708/
http://www.gabar.org/news/state_bars_judicial_poll_results_announced/