That's some bullshit right there.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

havent read the link, just commenting on your question. how do you determine that the judge is wrong and not the sc? if all the decisions of the sc are unanimous then it should definitely give you pause, but if there are dissenting opinions, then i dont see how you can say the lower court judge is completely wrong.

even if they are overturned on a regular basis, it probably only represents a small number of cases the lower judge presided over and it says nothing about the correctness of those other rulings.


eta: oh, i already read that story.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Come on dude. The SCOTUS is the supreme court, by definition the best and final say in law. If you have a losing streak with them, you are proving incompetent or intentionally misinterpreting law.

It isn't the job of the court to rule what is popular in their region, but what is the law. Since law is open to interpretation, the cutoff is the SCOTUS. And if you want to get philosophical on this, fine, but I do recall judges can pretty much be impeached by an act of congress, and a consistent losing streak with the highest court should trigger such act by default.

Lets make the cutoff 3 out of 4 overrulings. That would impeach much of the 9th district. Just kidding. The reality is judges tend to be consistent with each other.

If I recall the 80% overturn rate is only on the cases the scotus has heard. There are a lot more cases the SCOTUS doesn't even entertain. I pulled this from SNOPES who sourced the ABA

Each year the federal courts of appeals collectively terminate an average of 60,467 cases. However, the Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year, which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the federal courts of appeals.

So no judges would seriously be in trouble.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

"If a judge or appeals court has a high loss rate at the SCOTUS... is that grounds for impeachment?"


no - because the loss rate only includes cases that SCOTUS issued decisions on - cases that were not appealed, or cases that the SCOTUS cert. denied are not included in that loss rate.

What's the loss rate if you include all cases that the circuit rule on?

I have provided this response ... I don't know how many times. A lot.

Federal judges at the district court level are just general jurists, no more, no less. They are attorneys who rose to the level of judge. They are fallible, just like the rest of us.

The problem is - they are jacks of all trade, masters of none. They take a tax case one day, labor case another, criminal the next. They know FAR less than the attorneys who appear before them because those attorneys are specialists in select areas, where the judge has to cover it all. They are wrong A LOT. They have political agendas A LOT. They are fallible A LOT.

I think it is ridiculous that a single district court judge can issue a nation-wide stay. But, that is the system.

It is a horrible, HORRIBLE system that is better than every other system on the entire planet.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

its the final court but not necessarily the best.

the problem with interpreting the law, is that people come to different conclusions. and since all judges are people, its not surprising that they dont all agree. sometimes we disagree with the judges and we think theyre idiots, or they made a mistake, or they were biased etc. sometimes they are those things, sometimes its us.


at a glance, i agree with your rate of appeals math.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

hey look, we have a lot of common ground here.

but one question, if the judges were once attorneys, wouldnt it make sense that at least some of them specialized in select areas?

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

It's pretty easy for lawyers and other judges to determine when a judge is exercising judicial discretion and when a judge is promoting a political agenda.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yep, all of them do. But, a large number of judges were criminal prosecutors or attorneys general. So, yeah, they have some background in some areas, but still have to hear everything. I have had at least a dozen judges admit to me and opposing counsel that he/she will never understand labor and employment law like we do. This makes sense b/c I don't know shit about tax law, eviction law, etc., etc.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

i get that, its not surprising. but they would be capable of interpreting the laws if they were to read through them, no? much like a vascular surgeon would be able to understand the writings of an internal medicine physician even thought they have different specialties. they wouldnt have the level of expertise of course but its not like they find it all incomprehensible.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

Exactly. I can read the law in just about any topic and understand it. So, it certainly isn't like they would find any area incomprehensible. But, they certainly don't have the expertise in most areas. And (like I would have to do) they have to educate themselves in some areas.

In addition, a lot of them are operating with political agendas. Not all of them, not even a majority of them, but a lot of them.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Trump is right, that is the definition of judicial overreach.

i dont doubt it. its true for lawyers and prosecutors too ;) its that way in every field. except here in the lr.

---

who's smarter than you're? i'm!

WORD!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

But the power resides with the one who has:

LAST WORD

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

So on the grounds of this argument, I suppose we can't build a wall along the southern border, either, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Theoretically, correct.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Basically, we can't take an action against any country comprised of a class of people that constitutes a protected minority in our own country, right?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

In essence, this judge is extending the anti-discriminatory provisions of Title VII and the protections of the Constitution, to non-US citizens and non-US countries.

The exact same logic could be used to declare the wall illegal by saying it specifically targets one ethnicity -- Mexicans.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

The exact same logic could be used to declare the wall illegal by saying it specifically targets one ethnicity -- Mexicans.

That's my understanding as well. It seems like it applies whether or not it specifically targets one class- if those who are impacted belong to one class, they'd enjoy protection. It seems like it could be used to overturn sanctions or actions against the large majority of countries in the world.

Let's say we want to impose trade tariffs against Hong Kong one day. Can't, because that specifically targets Chinese people, who comprise 92% of Hong Kong's population. The fact that we weren't imposing the tariff on China itself would not be enough to disprove a racial animus. Just because we weren't targeting all Chinese people isn't proof that we didn't target some people because we hate the Chinese.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."