he Ninth Circuit Court ruled against President Trump and continued to block his travel ban on Thursday.
The Ninth Circuit is the most liberal court in the country — and is the most reversed court in the country.
Judge Richard R. Clifton, Judge William Canby and Judge Michelle T. Friedland from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit is the most liberal court in the country — and is the most reversed court in the country.
The 9th Circuit Court has been overturned 80% of the time.
National Review reported:
Although recent years have seen other circuits competing with the Ninth Circuit for the title of “Most Reversed,” the Ninth still appears to hold the unquestioned title. The Ninth Circuit’s best showing in recent years was October Term 2009, with a 60 percent reversal rate in the 15 cases on which certiorari was granted. The Sixth Circuit got the prize for highest reversal rate that year, with seven cases resulting in seven reversals, while the Seven Circuit came in a close second (91 percent reversal rate in eleven cases).
But in 2010, perhaps seeking to reclaim its position at the top of the heap, the Ninth Circuit was reversed a startling 19 times (79 percent), three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. The same pattern continued in the 2011 (71 percent) and 2012 terms (86 percent), when the Ninth Circuit was reversed more than twice as many times as most circuits had cases before the Court.
Attorney and author Mike Cernovich weighed in on the ruling:
Judicial activism! The President has near plenary power over foreign affairs. Today's Ninth Circuit ruling is politics by judicial fiat.
— Mike Cernovich ???????? (@Cernovich) February 9, 2017
Charles Krauthammer has also argued that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling against President Trump’s immigration order was “a disgraceful conclusion, because what they did, is they substituted their judgment, as to what constitutes a threat to American security for the president’s.”
Krauthammer said, “I think this is a disgraceful conclusion, because what they did, is they substituted their judgment, as to what constitutes a threat to American security for the president’s. Now we were all interested in what they think, but that is irrelevant to the case. The case was, does the president have the authority to do it? And if he does, it’s his judgment to make. And that’s the plain reading of the law. It’s he plain understanding of the Constitution. I think the policy was unwise, but that’s irrelevant. I think it’s very clearly legal.”
Krauthammer further stated that he thought the government’s arguments in front of the court were “exceedingly weak.” And the administration wasn’t prepared to defend the case in court.
