In all other circuits that would mean all the active duty judges plus any senior judge who was on the original panel. The 9th circuit is so large, however (29 active judges) that if a majority votes to rehear, 10 randomly picked judges plus the chief judge rehear the case.
There's an intermediate step left - any party or any active duty judge on the court can request a rehearing "en banc", not just by the 3 judge panel issuing the decision. If a majority of the active duty (ie not senior status) judges agree, the panel opinion is vacated and a larger hearing is held.
And the dissenting senior judge (Clinton appointee) gets to be considered as well, I think, since she was on the panel. So the pool to draw from is 17 Democratic-appointed judges and 13 Republican ones (3 Bush, 10 Trump).
Agreed. It's *possible* to draw a bad en banc group - there are 10 Trump appointees, along with 3 from W - but the court still has a majority of Democratic appointees and the Bush ones aren't completely batshit crazy.
(By "winter retreat for presidents" she apparently meant like Camp David is a summer retreat. Not a place where rich Americans and foreigners could pay six and seven figure bribes to the president via "memberships". But I digress.)
And she expressly left the property to the United States in the hopes that it would be used as a winter retreat for presidents. (Obviously she didn't think it would be "only one president", but it's kind of within the concept.) If anyone she'd blame the outgoing Carter admin for giving it back.
I'm not so sure Post would haunt Trump. She was not known for a restrained decorating style, for one thing (Trump didn't have to "tart up" Mar-a-Lago much, other than adding more structures to turn it into a club).
(b) this opinion, faulty as it may be, distinguishes the circumstances between Chicago and Portland as to whether the deployment is warranted. I think it's bullshit, but they at least *tried* to justify the difference.
Yes, but (a) they're in a different circuits, and circuit courts not infrequently rule differently (a "circuit split" is, in fact, one of the key reasons the Supreme Court may take up a case, in order to resolve that split), and ....
It's not that it doesn't matter. It's that it basically has no inherent power. Even its accrediting power for law schools exists only insofar as schools consent to seek it (as we're seeing in Texas) as I'm sure you know.
All Andrew seems to have taken away from the history of his title is "sexual indiscretions" as though they were good things, and not the fact that Yorks helped recover from, not commit, those things.
The previous Duke of York, his grandfather, became King because of the reigning king's sexual indiscretions. The one before that became King because his older brother, heir to the throne, died after a series of sexual indiscretions himself that gave him gonorrhea.
It's the same indictment. But her confusion seemed to stem from the fact that the pages were misnumbered and the indictment counts were off because the grand jury declined to indict on one of the three counts. She was too inexperienced to proof them herself so she missed it.
And in any event, "Let's elect her anyway, and maybe we'll luck out and she'll die and we'll have a Democratic governor to replace her and s/he'll appoint a more progressive person" seems like a really big gamble.
I'm saying stuck with Mills. If she wins, we're (that is, the entire country is) stuck with her unless (a) she resigns/retires (unlikely), or (b) she's expelled (even more unlikely). You seem to think senators have a habit of resigning/retiring for matters of health. They do not.
Not just the only signatory, but as I recall, reports were she was the only attorney presenting to the grand jury. So even if they cut her office a little slack to get a different signature on the indictment, the whole GJ vote would seem to be invalid.
Especially since Senate seats are six years, so unlike a House seat (where we can press to the left more readily) we're stuck for a while. And while Mills has said she'll serve only one term, I've seen that before, repeatedly, get jettisoned.
My point is, it's one issue of several, as another person has pointed out here too. She's definitely not liberal, and her past record suggests she's eager to reach across the aisle, which is something we DON'T need in the US Senate. As we should have learned from WV/AZ/PA by now.
As for Obama and gay rights: he didn't ignore shit. He opposed same sex marriage with a wink and a nod but pushed hard for ending DADT and any number of other punitive measures. And he flipped on SSM long before the Supreme Court ruled.
Opposing legalization in 2008 and in 2025 are two different things. And again, she's against DECRIMINALIZATION - making small amounts a civil offense. That's far milder than legalization and yet she opposes it.
