<< What's an Abolitionist to Do? | Main | The Next Step in Evolving Standards of Decency >>


News Scan

February 7, 2017 11:50 AM | Posted by CJLF Staff | 7 Comments
9th Circuit Panel to Review Travel Ban:  A three judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral argument today regarding District Judge James Robart's order to block enforcement of President Trump's temporary ban on immigrants from seven Middle Eastern countries.  Andrew McCarthy of National Review reports that the panel consists of Judges William Canby, a Carter appointee, Michelle Friedland, an Obama appointee, and Richard Clifton, a Bush appointee.  After ordering written briefs be submitted yesterday, the panel will hear oral argument via conference call.  The story notes that "the law is strongly on Trump's side, but that may not make any more difference to the famously left-leaning Ninth Circuit than it did to Judge Robart."  

7 Comments

notablogger | February 7, 2017 1:20 PM | Reply

While rational minds may differ on the merits of the judge's order regarding the travel ban, one thing cannot be disputed: the judge's name is James Robart, not "John Robert." Good grief. (I see that your source, the National Review website, states that his name is "John Robart." It appears you have compounded their error, but his real name is easily discovered upon checking multiple credible sources, including the federal courts directory.)

For those who are interested in further information about Judge Robart, here is a profile of the George W. Bush appointee from USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/02/04/meet-james-robart-judge-who-halted-trumps-immigration-ban/97491632/

notablogger | February 7, 2017 1:23 PM | Reply

Also, he's a district court judge, not a circuit court judge.

TarlsQtr replied to comment from notablogger | February 7, 2017 4:28 PM | Reply

Calling him a GW Bush appointee may be technically accurate but misleading.

District court judges are often nominated by their home state senator and just given a stamp of approval by POTUS.

That was the case with Robart. Ideologically, he is Patty Murray and Anita Cantwell, not Bush.

Of course, that does not even begin to defend his completely ludicrous decision that he did not even attempt to base in law.

TarlsQtr | February 7, 2017 4:28 PM | Reply

* Maria Cantwell

TarlsQtr replied to comment from notablogger | February 7, 2017 4:37 PM | Reply

I just read the article you posted and here is the first hint the guy is a quack:

"In his testimony, Robart said he saw the law as a way to help people who feel they’ve been wronged, or that the odds are unfairly stacked against them.

“Working with people who have an immediate need and an immediate problem that you are able to help with is the most satisfying aspect in the practice of law,” he told the Judiciary Committee in 2004. “If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the Senate, I will take that experience to the courtroom with me,..."

The first thing one needs to remember as a judge is that your job is not to right wrongs, it is to follow the law. Sometimes you will not like the law. Sometimes, the law may be an a$$. But is IS the law and your job is to follow it.

It is why there is never speculation as to how the liberal four will vote in a case. They follow outcomes, not the law.

notablogger | February 8, 2017 5:26 AM | Reply

The judge's name is still wrong in the news blurb. It's RobArt, not RobErt.

notablogger | February 8, 2017 5:30 AM | Reply

You corrected the first name but not the last name. It's RobArt, not RobErt.

Leave a comment

Search

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed

Subscribe to FULL feed Subscribe to FULL feed

Recent Entries

Monthly Archives