9th circuit court of appeals at it again

[Widescreen]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_w011633A.xml.html


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated the sentence of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, who was arrested near the U.S.-Canadian border and convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport at the turn of the millennium.

Ressam was arrested in December 1999 In Port Angeles, Wash., when he drove off a ferry from British Columbia with a trunk full of explosives. Prosecutors said he was intent on bombing the airport on the eve of the millennium.

He was sentenced to 22 years in prison after being convicted of all nine charges. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reversed his conviction on one of the charges and sent the case back to a lower court judge to issue a new sentence and explain the rationale behind the original 22-year term.

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

This could turn out to be yet another overturned ruling from the 9th. They are absolutely nuts.

[Hatfield]

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

and you saw where they were only reversing 1 of the 9 charges right?

[Jerk]

I wonder if they would have ruled the same if he tried to bomb their courthouse.

[IronSooner]

The lower court should sentence him to more. That'd be a kicker.

[Widescreen]

and you saw where they were only reversing 1 of the 9 charges right?
You know what's funny? As I was posting that, I thought "If Hatfield or one of the other resident lefties is around, he'll somehow try to make this idiot court look normal." Seriously.

What difference does it make? All that means is that that was the only 1 they had any chance of getting thrown out. The other 8 must've been so rock-solid that even they couldn't weasel this guy out of it.

You also realize that the 9th is the most overturned appeals court in the nation. There is a reason for this and it ain't because they get all the most difficult cases.

[TUSooner]

I'm glad to see all the SO lawyers have taken the time to read the court's decision so they could offer all this insightful commentary. :rolleyes:

[Hatfield]

not trying to make them look normal. everyone agrees they are the farthest out there.

just pointing out that you are needlessly freaking out.

[Widescreen]

not trying to make them look normal. everyone agrees they are the farthest out there.

just pointing out that you are needlessly freaking out.
That wasn't freaking out.


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: THIS IS FREAKING OUT!!!!!!1!1!1!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

;)

[Hatfield]

i stand corrected.

[TUSooner]

Just speculating here because I haven't seen the decision yet (like the rest of y'all, but I admit it :rolleyes: ): In these multi-count cases, the Gubment sometimes just sorta "forgets" to prove each and every element of one of a lesser charges. That could be what happened. The 8 remaining convictions will probably add up to the original sentence with ease.

Wait til the 9th actually DOES something stupid before getting all frothy at the mouth.

[yermom]

The decision does not necessarily mean the defendant will get a shorter term, as federal prosecutors said the original sentence was too light and judges are given wide latitude to sentence defendants as they see fit.

you guys not read this part?

[Hatfield]

you guys not read this part?

you not read post #2? ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Just speculating here because I haven't seen the decision yet (like the rest of y'all, but I admit it :rolleyes: ): In these multi-count cases, the Gubment sometimes just sorta "forgets" to prove each and every element of one of a lesser charges. That could be what happened. The 8 remaining convictions will probably add up to the original sentence with ease.

Wait til the 9th actually DOES something stupid before getting all frothy at the mouth.

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA!?!?!?!!!

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!

[Jerk]

What would be funny is if the lower court re-did the sentencing and made it longer


Ha Ha!

[Rhino]

I caught a bit of Michael Savage going lunatic-y on this on the way home tonight.

THE SIENTH QUEERKIT OF SCHAMEELS HAS DONE IT AGAIN! THOSE SAN FRANCISCO VALUES - BABY KILLING, HOMOSEXUAL LOVING, PORNOGRAPHY LOOKING HEATHENS! THE TIME FOR TALKING IS OVER AMERICA! LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK! 1-800-449-8255 I chanted "psy-cho, psy-cho" the rest of the way home.

[TUSooner]

What would be funny is if the lower court re-did the sentencing and made it longer


Ha Ha!
It COULD happen.

[SoonerGirl06]

The 9th Circuit is the most liberal court in America. They're gonna let this guy off easy.

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, Federal Sentencing Guidelines as enacted by Congress represent an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. But that's just me, the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

Anyhoo, as others have pointed out, this is not a huge deal. Seems to moi the 9CA has not overturned the conviction, they are only asking for enhanced justification for the sentence in order to ascertain whether it is in accordance with those blasted sentencing guidelines.

[TUSooner]

IMHO, Federal Sentencing Guidelines as enacted by Congress represent an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. But that's just me, the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

Anyhoo, as others have pointed out, this is not a huge deal. Seems to moi the 9CA has not overturned the conviction, they are only asking for enhanced justification for the sentence in order to ascertain whether it is in accordance with those blasted sentencing guidelines.
Actually... the Supremes have said (in Booker) that MANDATORY sentencing guidelines are UNconstitutional. So now the guidelines are "advisory," and the sentence need only be "reasonable." For most district courts it's mostly business as usual. The Supremes are soon to decide whether a sentence in accord with the advisory guidelines is presumed to be reasonable; they may also decide how far from the guidelines you can get until the sentence is unreasonable. I'm gonna see if the Niners' decision is up on WL now.

[jk the sooner fan]

Savage is still on the radio? wow...surprising....his schtick got old faster than gdc's.....i read one of his books and put it down about half way thru....never before have i felt like i was being screamed at by an author

[TUSooner]

OK, hears the deal - as briefly as I can:
One of the counts was carrying an explosive during a felony. The defendant argued that the statute required the explosives to have been carried "in relation to" the felony, which in this case was using a bogus passport. 2 of 3 of the Niners agreed with the D tat there was an implied "relation" element and said the explosives had no realtion to the passport fraud because the stuff was not used to facilitate the passport crime. The third judge dissented on grounds that the statute has no implied "in relation to" requirement.

The USA cross appealed and said the sentence was unreasonably lenient. All 3 of the Niners declined to rule on the sentence - very rightly - because district court was going to have to resentence the dude anyway, and plot its own way through the curent sentencing law fog.

[Frozen Sooner]

That makes sense.

[Okla-homey]

Actually... the Supremes have said (in Booker) that MANDATORY sentencing guidelines are UNconstitutional. So now the guidelines are "advisory," and the sentence need only be "reasonable." For most district courts it's mostly business as usual.

"a rose by any other name"...etc. I just don't like one branch getting into the chili pot of another, even to help season it.

[Jerk]

"a rose by any other name"...etc. I just don't like one branch getting into the chili pot of another, even to help season it.

If they'd quit legislating from the bench and letting child molestors go with a slap on the wrist, then I'd agree.

God, I pray for the day when the 9th circus or some other extreme leftists judge makes a ruling that contradicts the U.S. Constitution, and the masses do the unexpected: They say "f*ck you!" and ignore it.

Tyrants can come in many forms...but the problem with these arseholes is that they have no accountability for their actions.

Take the reversal of prop 187 in California. What if California said, "We're not going to be forced to pay for a problem that the Federal Gov't refuses to solve" and ignored it. What would the judges do? Arrest California?

I say f*ck them.

[Okla-homey]

God, I pray for the day when the 9th circus or some other extreme leftists judge makes a ruling, and the masses do the unexpected: They say "f*ck you!" and ignore it.



The last time that happened, Andy Jackson was in the White House. It did not end well for the Five Tribes.

[Jerk]

The last time that happened, Andy Jackson was in the White House. It did not end well for the Five Tribes.

If 1/4 of the population ignored one of their rulings, they couldn't put us all in jail.


I'm just fantasizing, because I'd love to see the day when all of government begins to fear the people...not the other way around. That's the way it was supposed to be.

[Jerk]

If the founding fathers made any mistakes, the lifetime appt. of federal judges is it. EVERY Gov't official should be accountable for their actions. These jokers aren't.

When the US Supreme Court ruled that private property could be siezed and handed over to private developers, they should have been tared, feathered, and ran out of town.

I shall remain silent as to what I think should have happened to the judges who ruled against the death penalty of minors BASED ON FORIEGN LAW. And let's remember the facts, here. These "kids" duct taped a woman after they kidnapped and robbed her from her home, and threw her over a bridge to let her drown.

Anyone here want to argue that these kids shouldn't have been immediately shot in the back of the head? (assuming they were caught in the act) What if the victim here was your wife, daughter, or mother. That's what I thought, biotches.

This sh*t gets me in a bad mood.

[Jerk]

If this stuff keeps going too far, there's liable to be a reaction. A bad reaction. Child molestors will be the first to see it. If the courts don't take care of it, then ...say a cop keeps a cheap saturday night special. He catches a child molestor, kills him, and plants the gun on him. Hey, I'm just sayin...if the courts won't do their job, then others will fill the role.

There have been two recent cases of child molesters getting slaps on the wrists by state courts. America will only take so much of this. We have a history of reacting violently to things like this. I'm not advocating anything, i'm just a student of history.

[TUSooner]

If they'd quit legislating from the bench and letting child molestors go with a slap on the wrist, then I'd agree.

God, I pray for the day when the 9th circus or some other extreme leftists judge makes a ruling that contradicts the U.S. Constitution, and the masses do the unexpected: They say "f*ck you!" and ignore it.

Tyrants can come in many forms...but the problem with these arseholes is that they have no accountability for their actions.

Take the reversal of prop 187 in California. What if California said, "We're not going to be forced to pay for a problem that the Federal Gov't refuses to solve" and ignored it. What would the judges do? Arrest California?

I say f*ck them.

Easy, big fella. I can tell you that in the US 5th Circuit, nobody gets a slap on the wrist, partic'larly kiddie porn peepers and child molesters. Most of the sentencing I've seen in real life is not lenient. It's the rare case that gets all the right-wing talking heads in a shouting tizzy.

As soon as we start solving our problems with the courts with armed insurrection, all bets and all rules are off, and we're over the edge. Belive me, yoiu want judges tat are not accountabole to the political whims of the oment, Louisiana's elected judges are not to be envied; many are in the pockets of the generous plaintiffs's bar.

[Jerk]

Easy, big fella. I can tell you that in the US 5th Circuit, nobody gets a slap on the wrist, partic'larly kiddie porn peepers and child molesters. Most of the sentencing I've seen in real life is not lenient. It's the rare case that gets all the right-wing talking heads in a shouting tizzy.

As soon as we start solving our problems with the courts with armed insurrection, all bets and all rules are off, and we're over the edge. Belive me, yoiu want judges tat are not accountabole to the political whims of the oment, Louisiana's elected judges are not to be envied; many are in the pockets of the generous plaintiffs's bar.

I like the 5th Circuit Court. They had the balls to rule that the 2nd was a right reserved to the people. The 9th ruled that the 2nd was a right that the gov't had reserved for itself.

I'm not advocating armed insurrection. I'm saying that if courts give molestors a fine and community service, then people are liable to react violently to the accused. I'm not saying people should, I'm just saying it's possible that they will. There was a judge in Nebraska that pretty much let a molestor off the hook in 2006 because she ruled "he's so small, he couldn't survive in jail." I'm not making this up. These kind of things make people very :mad:

You saw how people reacted to the ruling in this thread without reading the facts of the case. Because people assumed that the court was being wacky again, because some courts have a history of being wacky.

[Jerk]

and maybe judges shouldn't be elected, but they must be accountable. If they rule based on anything other than US law, there should be a way to remove them. Can't they be impeached? I guess it never happens.

[Vaevictis]

If 1/4 of the population ignored one of their rulings, they couldn't put us all in jail.

I think he may have been referring to the fact that, iirc, Andrew Jackson thumbed his nose at a Supreme Court order stopping the forced removal and went ahead and sent the Cherokees on their way saying something to the effect that "They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it."


If the founding fathers made any mistakes, the lifetime appt. of federal judges is it. EVERY Gov't official should be accountable for their actions. These jokers aren't.

Federal judges can be removed from the bench via impeachment. Feel free to call your congressperson. Personally, I like the impeachment approach because the application of the law should not be, IMO, easily subjected to the whims and variances of political pressures.


I like the 5th Circuit Court. They had the balls to rule that the 2nd was a right reserved to the people. The 9th ruled that the 2nd was a right that the gov't had reserved for itself.

If you actually read the 2nd, you'd know that it's not exactly "legislating from the bench" to rule that way. It can be read that way without much of a stretch, if you want to.

Personally, I think the language of the 2nd is irrelevant because, if I were ruling, I'd find the right to bear arms reasonable for one's own protection and defense of community as something reserved by the 9th Amendment. (Being that the right to defend one's self and community is a natural right of any man)

[Widescreen]

If you actually read the 2nd, you'd know that it's not exactly "legislating from the bench" to rule that way. It can be read that way without much of a stretch, if you want to.
"If you want to" is the activist judge mindset. It should never be an issue of "want to".

[Jerk]

So, can one argue that the 1st amendment protects the right of the government to free speech but not the people? That's absurd.

The Bill of Rights were clearly written to limit the power of the federal gov't, and protect rights of the people. How in sam hell did some people get this reversed? Oh, yeah, pubic skool.

[crawfish]

That makes sense.

http://www.engel-cox.org/images/Covers/sTalkingStop.jpg

[Frozen Sooner]

Um, sure.

Was that a picture of Matlock?

[Vaevictis]

"If you want to" is the activist judge mindset. It should never be an issue of "want to".

If the statute is ambiguous enough to be interpreted in different ways, in the absence of ironclad precedent, it WILL be interpreted in different ways.

Read the clause again; how do you know -- for sure -- that it's not the people reading it the other way that are being activist judges?


So, can one argue that the 1st amendment protects the right of the government to free speech but not the people? That's absurd.

Yeah, it is totally absurd, especially since it starts out saying that "Congress shall make no law..."

You're stretching too far and overreaching yourself. Surely you can find other laws or clauses that actually can be interpreted in a different way from the common understanding.


The Bill of Rights were clearly written to limit the power of the federal gov't

If the Bill of Rights constrains the inherent powers of the federal government, then why do they cease to do so as soon as the federal government is attempting to exercise those restrained powers outside of our borders? ;)

[Jerk]

Or how about we just do a little research into what the founding fathers said about the matter?

[OCUDad]

I can't remember where I heard it, but someone once said to me "The only thing worse than the American judicial system is every other judicial system on Earth."

Makes more sense to me now.

[Frozen Sooner]

Or how about we just do a little research into what the founding fathers said about the matter?
Interesting, because when judges do that very thing and come up with an answer they don't like people accuse them of being activist.

[Vaevictis]

Or how about we just do a little research into what the founding fathers said about the matter?

AFAIK, such research informs but does not bind. The only thing that binds, AFAIK, is the actual passed law.

[crawfish]

Um, sure.

Was that a picture of Matlock?

Dangit, a reset is usually good enough to ensure the image will show up. :mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

Ah, nice. Talking Heads spek.
And I'm sad that you're the only person to mention my location, and it took you like three weeks.

[crawfish]

Ah, nice. Talking Heads spek.
And I'm sad that you're the only person to mention my location, and it took you like three weeks.

I guess you finally posted something worth reading. :P

[Dio]

IMHO, Federal Sentencing Guidelines as enacted by Congress represent an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. But that's just me, the Supremes have ruled otherwise.

I didn't realize Diana Ross had this much power.

[Frozen Sooner]

I guess you finally posted something worth reading. :P

What's great about that is you have to slog through all the dreck to get to the good ones. All part of my plan.