comment: >
  
  There are more liberals than conservatives in Louisiana. They need to find each other and vote.
context: Except the Federalist Society is their master, not Trump. >
  
  Trump was just the useful idiot they got to appoint the judges. Trump doesn't know shit about judges or their qualifications. >
  
  If he did, he wouldn't have hired lawyers that needed those judges to ask them if they wanted a special master. >
  
  To be fair, they've been far to the right long before Trump. Unfortunately... >
  
  How far right?  Well, even Brent Kavanaugh is more reasonable, and reading some of his decisions overturning their rulings, seems to think that they are crazy. >
  
  The Fifth Circuit is where law goes to die. 
  The court, based in New Orleans, Louisiana, is largely considered the most conservative court in the country, with a strong record of opposition to civil rights, support for gun rights and efforts to curtail the power of federal regulatory agencies. 
  In Judge Charles A. Woods's dissent, he argued that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to the states, and therefore there is no violation of the Fifth Amendment when a state makes a determination based on what it perceives to be its legitimate interests and priorities. 
  In Judge Emilio M. Garza's dissent, he argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even review the challenge to the Texas law, and said the court had failed to tie its decision to the Fifth Amendment. 
  In Judge James L. Dennis's dissent, he argued that the court should have rejected the challenge to the Texas law based on the lack of standing for the plaintiffs. 
  If this is any indication of how these judges will decide in the appeal of the Muslim ban, we should all be terrified. >
  
  
  In Judge Charles A. Woods's dissent, he argued that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to the states
  
  Meanwhile, the equal protection clause:
  
  
  No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
  
  
  The states are explicitly exactly what the Equal Protection Clause applies to. >
  
  While I agree with the sentiment of this comment thread, I think it deserves mention that Charles A. Woods was a judge during the late 19th century when states were grappling with the extent of the "Incorporation Doctrine" (the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment). >
  
  That they thought they could build a legal ruling around arbitrarily defining how many days is legally allowable to be in a shit-covered room is something else. >
  
  And this is why we need major reforms in the federal judicial branch. >
  
  Meanwhile we have conservatives claiming that liberal judges like to legislate from the bench
  Yet another example showing that whatever the GQP accuses Democrats of doing, you know they’re doing themselves. >
  
  Do they teach making that face at Federalist Society meetings?! >
  
  It's stunning that even the Supreme Court is saying their rulings are too radical. That's special. >
  
  Wow I didn't expect Democrat senator Patrick Leahy to be a villain of this piece. Would love to know his take. >
  
  He not a villain in the piece. He just didn’t partake in hyper partisan tactics, which is now common place in appointing judges. >
  
  
  He just didn’t partake in hyper partisan tactics
  
  He openly ignored Republicans partaking in those tactics and thereby enabled exactly that.
  Yeah, he's at least a bit of a villain in this story. >
  
  More a fool than a villain, but when you’re responsible for decisions which impact millions of Americans what’s the difference >
  
  The 5th circuit judges probably would have been slave owners in that day >
  
  Of the 26 judges on that circuit, 19 were appointed by Republicans, including 6 by Trump alone.
  Don't let anyone tell you that the courts aren't important and shouldn't be a consideration when you vote for President. >
  
  Long article but worthy of your attention… >
  
  It absolutely is. Heavy, though. I had to stop halfway through and come back to it. >
  
  I agree, but my God the information was just beyond >
  
  How do these really bad judges never get impeached? >
  
  2/3 senate required, I believe. >
  
  I know, it just seems like actually running the country should be important to politicians >
  
  The 2016 election fucked America for two generations. Possibly forever. >
  
  Not to take anything away from the article, but I'd like to point out that one positive ruling from The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was Turner V. Driver back in 2017. This decision affirmed the First Amendment right to record the police. With so many people recording their and other people's interactions with the police nowadays, this was a huge win for civil liberties. >
  
  This statement needs to be corrected to 'The Fifth Circuit where brains go to die'. >
  
  Trump: showing America how much of a wreck every facet of government is down to the dang postal service. >
  
  They are essentially in open insurrection and should be treated as such. >
  
  This guy’s a Ho >
  
  Probably of big Mac clogged arteries >
  
  The Ninth District is the most overturned while the Fifth District is the least…. >
  
  Man, I wonder if there is any reason why the ninth might have a higher number of cases overturned.
  "It also accepted more cases from the Ninth Circuit than from any other federal appeals court. It's worth noting that the Ninth Circuit is also the largest circuit."
  Oh, so it has more cases, I wonder what happens if you look at percentages.
  "Since 2007, the 9th has trailed three other circuits in reversal rates. About 75.5 percent of its cases were reversed during that time, but the Sixth Circuit was most-reversed with a 88.1 percent rate. The Eighth Circuit came in second with 76.3 percent, and the Eleventh Circuit was reversed 75.9 percent of the time." >
  
  Want to save this country? An important step in the right direction would be capping the total time any judge, senator, or house member can be in office. >
  
  His mom’s a Ho. >
  
  Conservatives said the same about the Ninth. >
  
  There's a difference.  While the Ninth Circuit is more liberal, you don't see rulings getting overturned or appealed at the same rate as the Fifth.  What the article is pointing out and what I think is the bigger problem with the Fifth isn't its ideological bent, but that its judgments do not jive with legal or judicial theories.  While these do get overturned, it still creates chaos and confusion where none needs to exist. >
  
  A spokesman for Mr. Sasse pointed to a separate analysis from Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, that instead looks at how often a circuit court’s decision was reversed for every 1,000 cases it terminated from 1994 to 2015. By this metric, the Ninth Circuit does come out on top, with 2.5 cases per 1,000. The next highest rate is from the Sixth Circuit, at 1.7 cases per 1,000
  The same article expresses a counterargument as well, but there is an argument to be made. >
  
  That's TX, Louisiana and Mississippi for anyone eondering >
  
  Horrific.  Real people. Real lives affected.