Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

(49,069 posts)

21. Case is not before them. Therefore not a dissent. It was "unsolicited" and "unusual". . . nt

Thu Mar 16, 2017, 07:24 AM

Mar 2017

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Five Republican-nominated judges signal support for travel ban [View all] Cryptoad Mar 2017 OP

I thought judges weren't supposed to comment publicly on cases The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #1

Explaining reasons for dissenting is very common. elleng Mar 2017 #5

That's how it sounded, from CNN's characterization elleng Mar 2017 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author Princess Turandot Mar 2017 #13

They havent heard the case! Just going on opinion, like any of us nm Kashkakat v.2.0 Mar 2017 #25

Since when do ethics or rules apply to Republicans pfitz59 Mar 2017 #18

The 9th Circuit has 29 judges in it. bench scientist Mar 2017 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2017 #6

REINHARDT, J., concurring in the denial of en banc rehearing: elleng Mar 2017 #3

Would that be torture memo Jay Bybee? Solly Mack Mar 2017 #12

I keep a list of their names and I know most of them by memory. Solly Mack Mar 2017 #15

For some reason it's not real well known rsdsharp Mar 2017 #23

and interesting! elleng Mar 2017 #30

Aren't they supposed to hear arguments before they concur? Kittycow Mar 2017 #9

This is a decision on a procedural matter, elleng Mar 2017 #10

He's concurring with the denial to hear en banc. bench scientist Mar 2017 #11

"Sentence first, trial later." -- The Red Queen LastLiberal in PalmSprings Mar 2017 #19

Ugh... sakabatou Mar 2017 #16

thats why maggot in chief MFM008 Mar 2017 #17

Given the rulings to date Blue Idaho Mar 2017 #24

Maybe bought and promised to be paid for by Drumpf joshdawg Mar 2017 #20

Lot of confusion in this thread. I'll try to explain onenote Mar 2017 #26

so ,,,,, Cryptoad Mar 2017 #27

thx for the clarification ! Cryptoad Mar 2017 #29

In depth analysis:See You In Court 2.0 elleng Mar 2017 #31