9th Circuit Sides with Trump

🚨

ANOTHER MAJOR LEGAL VICTORY FOR TRUMP:

President Trump beats Gavin Newsom in 9th Circuit en banc case.

Trump can federalize California National Guard to support federal immigration efforts.https://t.co/gMsD6NywVh pic.twitter.com/2drn3qIiPB

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) October 23, 2025

Another victory for President Trump, the American people, and law and order. Another loss for Gavin Newsom, the America Last crowd, and violence and chaos.

9th Circuit Allows Trump to End TPS for 60,000 Migrants

BREAKING: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will allow the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 60,000 migrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal in the U.S., overturning San Francisco federal judge Trina Thompson’s decision to… pic.twitter.com/PYGrSB5okZ

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) August 20, 2025

9th Circuit Awards Trump $121,000 From Stormy Daniels

Fox hosts start laughing when they get the news that the Ninth Circuit awarded Trump $121k in attorney fees from Stormy Daniels as he was being arraigned.

“Obviously interesting timing” 🤣 pic.twitter.com/YmbPMqUzWk

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 4, 2023

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

While funny, it's not funny that time and money are being spent on Alvin Bragg's circus.

Rather than focusing on this idiotic, purely political persecution-prosecution, we should be addressing the load of serious issues facing the country.

China and Russia colluding to carve up the world is what the puppet masters pulling the strings in the White House SHOULD be concerned with.

Instead they’re ghost hosting a dog and pony show in New York, while our president naps. https://t.co/6bNy3D50j2

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) April 4, 2023

9th Circuit Reversal Record at Supreme Court

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court https://t.co/3ND9fYhv3S pic.twitter.com/s11nyX3fwu

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 10, 2017

Wow.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has an EIGHTY PERCENT reversal rate at the Supreme Court.

That's a truly awful record.

Hillary and 9th Circuit Ruling

Hillary Clinton emerged to tweet about the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on President Trump's immigration executive order.

3-0

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 10, 2017

Kellyanne Conway responds to Hillary with a tweet of her own.

PA, WI, MI. https://t.co/wqhYCU2qe2

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) February 10, 2017

9th Circuit Rules Against Trump

BREAKING: 9th Circuit libs rule against Trump's immigration enforcement order https://t.co/qyM8wwuCPP

— Conservative Review (@CR) February 9, 2017

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

Obama and Bush: State Secrets

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Obama greatly admires former President George W. Bush.

From ABC:

President Obama's Justice Department didn't just disappoint some of his liberal supporters by arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act this week, disappointing if not angering supporters who also support same sex marriage and were appalled by the comparison of same sex marriage to incestuous ones. The president's lawyers also repeated some of the Bush administration's national security arguments.

The Obama Justice Department on Friday asked the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review an earlier appeals court ruling to determine if details about CIA rendition flights coordinated by Jeppesen Dataplan -- a division of Boeing -- should be protected as "state secrets."

As a candidate, then-Sen. Obama faulted President Bush for using the "state secrets" argument too often, and too broadly, though as president he has used it in at least three cases:

1) Jewel v NSA, in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the National Security Agency surveillance by suing on behalf of AT&T customers whose records may or may not have been caught up in the NSA "dragnet";

2) Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, in which the Islamic charity, investigated for terrorist financing out of its Oregon offices, sued the government alleging it was targeted illegally under the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program; and

3) Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a case involving five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including since-freed Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

In April, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the Justice Department can only cite the "state secrets" privilege for certain evidence in the lawsuit and cannot use the state secrets defense to dismiss the suit altogether.

Friday's filing from Obama's Justice Department asks for an entire review by the appeals court.

Who knew Obama would desperately cling to the very techniques that he criticized President Bush for using?

The hypocrisy really doesn't come as a surprise to some of us. He's a fraud, more broken promises.

Obama certainly hasn't faced all that much media scrutiny for his many changes of heart since he was campaigning to be the president.

Newdow's Crusade

It's ironic that atheist Michael Newdow is fighting the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by school children as if he were engaged in a holy war.

This anti-religious zealot won a battle in his secularist jihad yesterday.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

This Judge Karlton is no Judge Roberts. He doesn't seem to have a very bright legal mind.

I'm not certain, but I don't believe that any student is required to recite the Pledge. Being in a classroom while other students pledge allegiance to the flag is not a violation of a right.

What right would that be? The right not to hear others say "God"? Where in the Constitution is that one found?

Calling the classroom ritual of saying the pledge to be a "coercive requirement to affirm God" is a real stretch.

Where's the coercion if children do not have to participate in the recitation?

It's truly ridiculous and a waste of tax-payers' money to use the courts to argue such a silly case.

I would love to see Newdow testify in court. "Put your hand on the Bible and raise your right hand."

Would Newdow then sue the court for being "coercive"?

Text of the Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by majority leader Frist and Democratic leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to the subsequent individual nominations to be made by the president and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (District of Columbia Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit) and Priscilla Owen (Fifth Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (Ninth Circuit) and Henry Saad (Sixth Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the advice and consent clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the rules of the Senate that would force a vote on judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the president with regard to the use of the president's power to make nominations. We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as senators seek to uphold.