A rule change in 2013 allowed the Senate to confirm circuit court nominees with 50 votes. This version says the rule changed in 2017. We are in the process of correcting this video.
That was an obvious and huge error that tells me your editors lack experience. It wasn't just the wrong year was said. They included context based on the error which means it was intentional or gross negligence. It would be like saying the affordable care act passed in 2017 and then going on and on about how bad it was for trump to have done it.
Tell me how the 5th circuit is making decisions that are contradictory to the Constitution? Because I can go on and on about how the 9th circuit has made decisions that are blatantly contradictory to the constitution.
@@JustTheRealMrBill that's rich. The SC looked over years of legal precedent to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now the country is showing that most citizens don't agree with what a few judges believe. Therefore, they too are activists
@@JustTheRealMrBill hahahaha So over turning Roe is fine and not judicial activism in your book. But anything out the 9th circuit is? So you're just a typical GQP hypocrite.
There will never be any objective judges or objective law things will always be subjective, but it would be nice if they toned it down a little and actually had a 50/50 so there would be debate rather then just one sided conclusions
Officially, it is. Judges do not have formal partisan affiliations. But you can _always_ look at the rulings the judges make, and compare them against the outcomes favored by various partisan organizations. That's not a United States thing - it's possible in any system where you have at least two broadly acceptable partisan viewpoints.
@@NYKevin100 Except in some states they do. And in some they are elected, and in some they put their political affiliation on the ballot. Yikes. The problem with the US is that its courts (and the SC in particular) are widely known to be political and partial and nobody is taking steps to rectify it - if anything the opposite is true (they lowered the appointment threshold to 50 votes in the senate fairly recently). Whereas in my country nobody would ever dream of having a one ideology constitutional court and the president even makes sure to nominate judges with differing viewpoints, that is not the case in the US.
You do realize sir, that this is a lie Democrats change the rules in 2013, so Obama could appoint left wing extremist, ideologies judges, who do not care about the rule Of law
Just goes to show how important our vote is and how vulnerable our Country is to bad actors inside our government. Congress being so powerless, because of the Tea Party (and now the Trump party) shattering all of the norms that kept it functioning. Just look at the current Speaker and how he got there. Look at how one Senator has been holding up military promotions for months. Watch as they struggle to briefly get along just so that they can keep the government funded.
1:52 this is inaccurate, the process shifted in 2013 during the Obama administration and a democrat controlled senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid, republicans continued the use of this in 2017
A stable and predictable legal system is a ground for good business and economic gain. It is hard enough to do business without shifting sands of legality. By politicizing the courts, the politicians are destroying the economic prospects of the country.
Because a conservative Supreme Court overturning a liberal appeals court is to be expected, not a conservative Supreme Court overturning a conservative appeals court.
The 9th circuit has been flagrantly disregarding supreme court orders and procedurally stalling to buy time in matters they dont like. Wheres that video?
WJS is desperate to smear fifth circuit. Democrat, DC judges are the most biased in the country. It’s laughable to try to compare Trump judges to Democrat judges who nearly 100% rule for their politics.
You’re being lied to Democrats change the rules in 2013 this whole news report is literally a fabrication Of nothing but lies google it for yourself Democrats change the rules in 2013 is Obama to put extremist judges on the bench
The premise of this whole video is a lie. The Democrats change the rules in 2013 when they have a majority rule the Senate, so Obama could appoint radical judges which he appointed a lot of them and obviously you’re aware of the 92% of the time the main circuit court is overruled, but these liberal hacks on here, or not going to have a video about that trust me this is all about manipulation and lying.
@@Raprada this is their second attempt at Reed editing this video to make it so it doesn't seem like it'is a lie but again there was no change to the procedure in 2017 by Donald Trump the change was in 2013 by pelosi the fifth circuit court has only had four cases overturned in 6 years. Now for comparisons the 9th circuit Court of radical activist judges is overturned 92% of the time by the supreme. It's not what aboutisem it's about facts in this video has none it is all political lies
Do you hate them because you think they’re liberal, therefore bad? You seem to not care about the subject of the video, unless it’s the specific circuit you dislike
@@jtgd they aren't liberal, they are leftists. Liberals believe in the constitution. As I said, I'm more concerned how one circuit is wrong so much more than the others.
Thanks for the video. I believe that in order for the ordinary viewer to understand and digest what you are pointing out, you may need to produce a video about the different types of courts … how they are structured and how they operate. Please dismiss this feedback if you already have a video like that in your library. Please point me to it if it is the case . Thanks.
The whole premise of this video is a Lie the Democrats change the rules in 2013 under Obama and the ninth circuit court on the West Coast is actually overturn 92% of the time the fifth circuit so I actually only been overturned twice you are being manipulated by the Democratic Party and their lackeys
Well, It would be benefifical to be able to refer to people as "he" or "she" or "they" before understanding the complexities of jurisdiction, jurisprudence, etc. I presume that the regular child would prefer to know how to speak before all that, too. @@yijiequ662
I see y’all didn’t mention that the 9th circuit just bypassed the 3 judge panel to avoid a proper ruling on CA gun control and went straight to an en banc hearing. This almost NEVER happens, and shows the strong AGENDA that the circuit has. Furthermore, their agenda is not GOOD, it is BAD because it is frequently very inconsistent with the Constitution. Multiple judges on the circuit even strongly rebuked their colleagues for going to such lengths to avoid this case being heard by a random 3 judge panel first. AND, that CA law is BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and the 9th Circuit upheld it, so why aren’t y’all upset over that?
@@trev5.566 Yeah I don't trust any corporate media, CNN, FOX, NBC, NEWSMAXX they're all just serving the elite. I being honest, I'm on the left but I hope to move to the US one day for the right to bear arms and the open space to ranch or own a cabin, I wish to be more self sufficient and owning a gun sounds awesome. Gun rights here are basically nonexistent. I hope you like it in Texas :)
I didn’t realize UA-cam commenters get to decide the constitutionality of laws. You made a correct process argument on how this circuit abuses its power to override laws then agree that a state’s law, upheld by several other courts for years and years and years is suddenly correctly struck down by an activist court?? Where is the consistency in principles here? The adherence to the rule of law and precedent. Gun laws only started to come under attack under Dean v. Heller which itself upended centuries of American precedent to bizarrely interpret blanket personal gun ownership in the US - when the letter of the law in the constitution explicitly ties private gun ownership to membership in state regulated militias. You can’t say one form of judicial activism is ok but then welcome its fruits.
@@themarcusismael13 Sam Adams, the brother of John Adams-THE AUTHOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, said: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." First I will address the comments on court procedure. To keep it short, a courts deviation from normal procedure can show where their priorities are, rightly or wrongly, but it is just procedure, not law. For example, certain deviations from procedure to make a proper ruling on a pressing matter can be perfectly reasonable. The Supreme Courts JOB is to properly interpret the Constitution. And an inferior courts job is to interpret the Constitution and follow the SCOTUS’s instructions. And, obviously, I am not a court, but, sir, I can certainly understand my Constitution and defend it. The Supreme Court has not radically changed its position on the second amendment at all. It has made few 2A related rulings before Heller, but all the past rulings I have heard of have been consistent and strong. And finally to the “state regulated militias” argument. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE *PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It doesn’t say the right of the “militia” or the right of the “government agents.” It is the right of the PEOPLE, you and me, that CAN NOT be infringed. There exists no other amendment in the Bill of Rights that is so clear and concise. The right doesn’t lie with the government, it lies with THE *PEOPLE* . Furthermore, the militia is comprised by citizens, not government agents or employees. And during the time of the founding, the militia members even brought their privately owned weapons. We The People are the Militia. And if you refuse to believe me, and the Supreme Court, then surely you must believe the Founding Fathers themselves! George Washington said: "When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens duty to take away goverment's right to govern.” Pretty clear John Adams said: "ARMS IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY, THE OVER-THROW OF TYRANNY, OR IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE." Thomas Jefferson said: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Frederick Douglass, a great African American politician, said: “A man's right rests in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.” Sam Adams, John Adams brother, said: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Tench Coxe, a PA Delegate to the Continental Congress, said: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.” Patrick Henry said:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
@@eddie6167 sure they do not mention it because it is a lie in 2013 the Democrats changed the rules so Obama could appoint judges Google it if you do not believe
@@rs70valkyrie16 fixing what the whole video is nothing but lies. The case of the consumer protection agency in front of the supreme Court right now is actually out of Maine which is not in the fifth circuit the fifth circuit has only had four cases overturned by the supreme the 9th circuit has 92% of it's cases overturned there is not one factual statement in this whole video this type of illegal political propaganda is against the law and a Wall Street journal needs to have its broadcasting licenses removed permanently and the other question you should be asking is why hasn't UA-cam removed this video that is clearly misinformation and incorrect because they are politically aligned with the same radical ideology
@@Raprada That's not what about ism. What about ism is trying to justify one courts bad behavior by pointing out another. The comments here are saying the 9th is just as bad. That's not what about ism.
@@Ohnothisisbad they are the largest circuit so it makes sense they present the most cases to the supreme court, and the supreme court has a super majority of right wing nuts that consistently overturn precedent and do mental gymnastics to get to their own goals. the fifth circuit is more prone to judge shopping and as most legal observers will tell you, the fifth circuit uses inappropriate tactics even more egregious than the supreme court to reach its conclusions
I don’t understand the issue here, the 9th circuit is well known for being a left wing haven for partisan left wing cases and they do the same thing. And while I agree that reducing the amount of votes needed to confirm judges was a bad thing, you fail to mention it was done by the democrats. so we are just living under the new norms set by them. I find it odd that you would center your argument on the right leaning district while ignoring the 9th circuit left leaning district. All while not mentioning that the party who changed the procedural rules on confirmation votes was the democrats….hmm🤔
Also need to look at 7th circuit. Recent ruling on AWB is laughably wrong with misquoting statute and precedent - then applying in even more ludicrous manner.
You have a good point about editorial balance. I would remind those who disagree with the OP to remember that dialogue stops when everything becomes a one way street.
@@kurtniemeyer6314ok so? Unlike the 5th, the 9th is the one that’s gone out of their way to bypass/violate their own circuit court proceeding rules to get certain cases where they want them (Miller V Bonta, Duncan v Bonta), had the most number of rulings overturned by SCOTUS than any other circuit court in the country, and gone out of their way to defy what is clear SCOTUS precedent.
@@Raprada It’s not “whataboutism” when the statement/question is meant to prove bias and double standards. Proving that a speaker is biased is a part of assessing credibility, and it is what distinguishes those that argue in good faith and those that are propagandists. Try addressing the comparison next time rather than acting like the term “whataboutism” is enough to refute an argument. 😉
@@stevecooper7883it’s not hypocrisy. The 9th Circuit actually judges based on the law. The 5th circuit is literally bankrolled by right wing activists. Just because you don’t like how a judgement is handed down, doesn’t mean it’s “biased.” Reality actually has a liberal bias.
This is a lie google it Democrats change the rules in 2013, so Obama could put extremist left wing judges on the bench. You’re being manipulated and fear mongering by the extreme left.
168 filibusters (at the time) had been made against Presidential nominations, half of them were made against Obama's nominees (to include his nominees for his own Cabinet!), breaking with Senate tradition and forcing the nuclear option. @@badluck5647
@@badluck5647Obamacare passed with 60 votes babe. This seems to have been a fake news story going around back in the day. I remember my dad telling me Obama cheated to get it passed, but it simply isn't true. The democrats had a huge senate majority after the 2006 midterms and 2008 election, so they had the 60 votes required to pass it.
I wonder why he would argue that since many of the state supreme courts are elected and that didn’t seem to be that big of a deal. Of course they do have significant problems too.
Glaring omission: the change made in 2013 allowed President Obama the same incentive to nominate extreme leftist judges. The 2017 chage simply extended the Obama Era judicial standard to the Trump administration.
You can thank Harry Reid for pushing for the 2013 changes that made simple majority approval for judges possible. He was warned about the consequences, yet he ignored them
Conservatives held up all the appointments forever. Business of the nation needs to get done; the right will always view obstruction as a viable strategy.
Because McConnell and Senate Republicans refused vote for any of Obama’s judicial nominees, so Democrats changed the rule to have functional courts while they still had control of the Senate. And when Republicans took over the Senate, they just held all the held seats open in hope the next president will be a Republican. Just need to look at how disproportionately many more judges Trump was able to appoint. Clinton (2 terms) appointed 378 judges (2 Supreme Court) Bush (2 terms) appointed 327 judges (2 Supreme Court) Obama (2 terms) appointed 329 judges (2 Supreme Court) Trump (1 term) appointed 234 judges (3 Supreme Court)
So Federal judges are nominated and confirmed by the POTUS and the Senate, neither of which necessarily reflects the majority of the population. Just recently, 2 Presidents have been elected by the MINORITY of voters, and the senate has over-represented Republicans for decades.
To say this is a problematic unique to 5th circuit is disingenuous the 9th circuit has the same problem with the pols reversed, they just find a way to procedurally delay getting to the Supreme Court and to keep their ruling in place because they know it likely won’t go their way.
I think a 5-5-5 approach would produce better results. 5 democrats 5 republicans and 5 chosen by the court for scotus. Then allow them to recommend nominees to the President that are non binding for lower courts.
Oh ok cool, activist judges who act as politicians but in robes. Definitely consistent with their *conservative* ideology and not legislating from the bench!
"Let's point out only the republican leaning district courts and ignore the extreme decisions of the 9th circuit". "it is totally trumps fault" Obama did it for all other nominees they just applied it to judicial.
@@kassiogomes8498 That's moronic, the whole thing including the video title targets this court, which happens to be conservative learning as the issue. You aren't painting the court system. Literally some of these tactics are used in every district court. Partisan politicians appoint politically leaning judges SURPRISE.
So, though the 9th circuit is the MOST overturned appeals court, you are focusing on the 5th Circuit because it produces opinions that you are on the other side of. And the 9th Circuit has not had a "balanced bench" any time in the last 50 years. That is because California senators (just like Texas senators) get a strong say in who goes to their court districts. Please be a bit balanced.
But the Supreme Court was always conservative majority, thus leading to a disconnect between conservative and liberal views. In todays world, 5th circuit court and Supreme Court have the same ideological thinking
So the judicial system is working and has conservatives in the south and WSJ calls it extreme without looking evenhandedly to the circuts on the coasts... someones bias is showing.
This video is as skewed in political opinion as its narrative claims the 5th Circuit is skewed. Dobbs happened in Mississippi and venue was proper only in the 5th Circuit. The creator of this video neglected to remind the viewer that the 5th was instrumental in placing the power of the judiciary behind 1960's era Civil Rights Legislation. According the to the New York Times in an obituary written about John Minor Wisdom, Judge Wisdom's Opinion brought about desegregation in the USA. The building on Camp St in New Orleans was renamed by the Court in his honor. What you can say about the 5th Circuit is that the judges, despite of who nominated them, take logic and precedent seriously.
Part of the reason judges are so important right now though, and why people want a strongman like Trump, is that with the filibuster it is nearly impossible to pass legislation. The filibuster simply moves the policy debate from the legislature to the executive office, or the courtroom.
But that way things is nowdays the filibuster just stops political development from any side. Meanwhile the world continues to further and further away from the policy decide many years ago. Dosen't the US need more policy for today challenges rather than 30 years ago?
These rule changes were brought about in spite of the filibuster’s continued existence. This is a weird assertion to make that runs counter to the facts. Parties will abuse and overstep the bounds of power even with arcane procedural rules like the filibuster.
I think that one is more easily explainable by ideological differences between the right leaning supreme court and the left leaning 9th circuit, whereas it is interesting that the 5th circuit, which is supposedly politically aligned with the supreme court, is seeing so much failure.
Theyre talking about a conservative leaning scotus overturning conservative circuit court cases. Your point is completely irrelevant to this subject lol
Obamacare was passed by reconciliation through the 2011 fiscal budget. This was the save way the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017 during the Trump Administration. Maybe do some research before you keep posting nonsense.
@@Einsteinbomb Budget reconciliation was supposed to be for spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit. Obama misused the process to pass Obamacare without the standard 60 votes the bill needed. This was considered a broken taboo at the time. However, once the taboo was broken, the respect for the 60 vote threshold disappeared for both parties. You can try to rewrite history but the facts are the facts.
The Rahimi case is about if 2A rights can be taken away without due process, merely via a civil restraining order. No, is the correct answer per SCOTUS, post Bruen. The burden is now on the government to find a law during the Founding Era that stripped 2A rights with no due process. Post Bruen, "balancing tests" are now strictly prohibited when judging a 2A case. As with 1A, our 2A Rights may no longer be "balanced" away due to a claimed "government interest." Other "controversial" decisions by the 5th? Restoring gun rights to 18 to 20 years old, who are indeed part of the "People" noted in the Constitution.
I don’t believe gun laws exist other than to keep poor and minority populations down. I believe gun laws benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Very unusual for the wsj to make so many errors and have such a far left view. I bet this was put together by someone with access and not being supervised.
Federal judges aren't elected. They are appointed. There is no objective way to choose judges by merit alone. All these judges have the merit to be judges.
1:54 - Lolz Demz change the rules and it backfired hard 😂 Politicians really so short sighted sometimes 🤦🏾♂️ They thought they had 2017 in the bag, imagine if Trump didn't win y'all should be thankful 💀😅
You can’t get an interpretation “wrong”. That’s why they’re there. To INTERPRET. if there was a wrong and right we wouldn’t need anyone to interpret, it would be apparent. You just don’t like how they’re interpreting.
This is all a lie Google it in 2013 the Democrats change the rules so Obama good point extremist judges and to your comment the ninth circuit court on the West Coast is actually over turned 92% of the time because it’s full of extremist judges
@@thehorizontries4759How can they overturn it if it's not wrong? If a judge constantly gets their decision overturned they shouldn't be a judge. That's their only job so it shouldn't be that hard
my god this is so hideously drawn out for what should be a 1 minute video it reminds me why the legacy media is dead get off youtube and stay on your websites
@@AnimMouse the difference is I can point to the Constitution and justify the 5th’s decisions and the 9th jumps through hoops and made up theory yo justify theirs.
within 30 seconds of listening in the other room to this auto-played video my thoughts are "ugh, some super bias dogma is about to be preached" but when I saw it was the wsj, I was like, "ah that makes sense, not just me, it's them."
x,,.,,..,., The ( Masonic main computer ), has a program , most of this program has the syntax of : if ( the person is thinking about subject 1 ) then ( make him think about subject 2 ) if ( the person is thinking about subject 3 ) then ( make him think about subject 4 ) and so on ...... example 1: if ( the arabic leader is thinking about fighting israel ) then ( make him think about a deal with israel ) if ( the arabic leader is thinking about better schools ) then ( make him think about more singers ) example 2 : if ( spain leader is thinking about joining force with EU ) then ( make him think about leaving EU ) if ( spain leader is thinking about facing US ) then ( make him cooperate with US ) ........ it is so important to protect leaders from signals that target the brain ....... because , effecting one person ( the leader ) is equal to effect the whole country ( the one he is running ) to protect the leader , solution 1: do not attend ( opponent environment ) solution 2: building with multi floors ( like 5 floors ) , staying on the 1st floor can prevent signals from reaching you ( blocked by all the floors above )
I believe that both 5th and 9th circuits tend to have the most decisions overturned due to both appeal courts having a right and left leaning, respectively. This video fails to acknowledge the left leaning bais in the 9th, whose cases are also overturned, and is showing the writers own bias is only looking for right leaning cases that are controversial. There is a reason a prior Justice called it "the naughty ninth".
If President Biden gets reelected next year, he potentially could nominate 1 or even 2 more Justices to The Supreme Court (replacing Thomas &/or Alito), which would balance out the 3 Justices Trump (thanks to McConnell) nominated to The Supreme Court.
@MrPhilbert1981 I don’t support Kennedy but judicially speaking having an independent centrist candidate might help a point some reasonable justices rather than the extremist ones we’ve had recently. Eg alito.
A rule change in 2013 allowed the Senate to confirm circuit court nominees with 50 votes. This version says the rule changed in 2017. We are in the process of correcting this video.
That was an obvious and huge error that tells me your editors lack experience. It wasn't just the wrong year was said. They included context based on the error which means it was intentional or gross negligence.
It would be like saying the affordable care act passed in 2017 and then going on and on about how bad it was for trump to have done it.
but as always you said that is trump make that. you are so obvious wsj
With such a severe error, shouldn't you consider taking the video down entirely until you have corrected the error?
Huge error. Totally changes the color of this piece. This is basic stuff, too.
You should take this video down.
Love when judges become political activists in the court and decide cases based on their personal beliefs rather than the law. Go Murica
Tell me how the 5th circuit is making decisions that are contradictory to the Constitution?
Because I can go on and on about how the 9th circuit has made decisions that are blatantly contradictory to the constitution.
@@JustTheRealMrBill I just want judges to be impartial and not use a make believe magical book for laws.. too much to ask for?
@@JustTheRealMrBill that's rich. The SC looked over years of legal precedent to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now the country is showing that most citizens don't agree with what a few judges believe. Therefore, they too are activists
@@JustTheRealMrBill hahahaha So over turning Roe is fine and not judicial activism in your book. But anything out the 9th circuit is? So you're just a typical GQP hypocrite.
There will never be any objective judges or objective law things will always be subjective, but it would be nice if they toned it down a little and actually had a 50/50 so there would be debate rather then just one sided conclusions
It’s so bizarre how Americans talk about conservative and liberal courts and judges. The justice system should be impartial and apolitical
Officially, it is. Judges do not have formal partisan affiliations. But you can _always_ look at the rulings the judges make, and compare them against the outcomes favored by various partisan organizations. That's not a United States thing - it's possible in any system where you have at least two broadly acceptable partisan viewpoints.
@@NYKevin100 Except in some states they do. And in some they are elected, and in some they put their political affiliation on the ballot. Yikes.
The problem with the US is that its courts (and the SC in particular) are widely known to be political and partial and nobody is taking steps to rectify it - if anything the opposite is true (they lowered the appointment threshold to 50 votes in the senate fairly recently). Whereas in my country nobody would ever dream of having a one ideology constitutional court and the president even makes sure to nominate judges with differing viewpoints, that is not the case in the US.
That only started with Trump.
“That’s fascism” - America today
Bush v Gore was the end
Shows the huge flaws in our current judicial system. Justice… manipulated.
The four branches of our government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial and Political Manipulation 😢
😂😂😂
You do realize sir, that this is a lie Democrats change the rules in 2013, so Obama could appoint left wing extremist, ideologies judges, who do not care about the rule Of law
Yeah, but democrats are paying the price for having done it.
Just goes to show how important our vote is and how vulnerable our Country is to bad actors inside our government. Congress being so powerless, because of the Tea Party (and now the Trump party) shattering all of the norms that kept it functioning.
Just look at the current Speaker and how he got there. Look at how one Senator has been holding up military promotions for months. Watch as they struggle to briefly get along just so that they can keep the government funded.
1:52 this is inaccurate, the process shifted in 2013 during the Obama administration and a democrat controlled senate, under the leadership of Harry Reid, republicans continued the use of this in 2017
Yeah that was big news. Who is doing this for wsj that doesn't remember Harry Reid? Are they 20?
1:55 2017, The senate changed the rules…. That’s not wrong
@@jtgd
Wsj has postes a correction. It was under Harry Reid. It was referred to as the nuclear option.
A stable and predictable legal system is a ground for good business and economic gain. It is hard enough to do business without shifting sands of legality. By politicizing the courts, the politicians are destroying the economic prospects of the country.
Historically the 9th circuit has had the most cases overturned. The Washington Post didn't mention that part.
ya they didn't want to talk about the 9th at all rofl
Because a conservative Supreme Court overturning a liberal appeals court is to be expected, not a conservative Supreme Court overturning a conservative appeals court.
Uhhh this is a video by The Wall Street Journal - a pretty conservative newspaper…
@@platinum_cadencethey just can't
It’s also had the most cases affirmed.
Why don’t we hear about the 9th Appeals Court, the most Liberal?
5th: 12R:5D
9th: 13R:15D
Ratio is way different
1st court is 5D:0R...
But I guess california is easier to hate on
Whataboutism
Because the MSM is here to do the left's bidding. This ain't your gramma's MSM.
@@Raprada Hypocrisy
The 9th circuit has been flagrantly disregarding supreme court orders and procedurally stalling to buy time in matters they dont like. Wheres that video?
WJS is desperate to smear fifth circuit. Democrat, DC judges are the most biased in the country. It’s laughable to try to compare Trump judges to Democrat judges who nearly 100% rule for their politics.
Whataboutism
@@Raprada snowblindness
@@anubisswiftFacts don't care about your feelings
The four branches of our government: Executive, Legislative, Judicial and Political Manipulation. 😢
You’re being lied to Democrats change the rules in 2013 this whole news report is literally a fabrication Of nothing but lies google it for yourself Democrats change the rules in 2013 is Obama to put extremist judges on the bench
I guess you'll cover the 9th Circuit now. "The Most Overturned Appeals Court in the U.S." would be a good title
5th: 12R:5D
9th: 13R:15D
Ratio is way different
Whataboutism
Or maybe the circuit court that covers a FIFTH of the US population
Also, is there a similar video detailing the 9th circuit who in the past have decided many controversial cases?
Are you asking in good faith?
The premise of this whole video is a lie. The Democrats change the rules in 2013 when they have a majority rule the Senate, so Obama could appoint radical judges which he appointed a lot of them and obviously you’re aware of the 92% of the time the main circuit court is overruled, but these liberal hacks on here, or not going to have a video about that trust me this is all about manipulation and lying.
Whataboutism
@@Raprada this is their second attempt at Reed editing this video to make it so it doesn't seem like it'is a lie but again there was no change to the procedure in 2017 by Donald Trump the change was in 2013 by pelosi the fifth circuit court has only had four cases overturned in 6 years. Now for comparisons the 9th circuit Court of radical activist judges is overturned 92% of the time by the supreme. It's not what aboutisem it's about facts in this video has none it is all political lies
@@Raprada wow, can’t imagine living in a world as cynical as yours, my question was an honest one. Hope you find your way out of the darkness brother.
I want to know why the 9th circuit is the most overturned and full of so many morons for judges.
Do you hate them because you think they’re liberal, therefore bad?
You seem to not care about the subject of the video, unless it’s the specific circuit you dislike
@@jtgd they aren't liberal, they are leftists. Liberals believe in the constitution. As I said, I'm more concerned how one circuit is wrong so much more than the others.
Whataboutism
@@RapradaHypocrisy
Now do the 9th circuit.
Thanks for the video. I believe that in order for the ordinary viewer to understand and digest what you are pointing out, you may need to produce a video about the different types of courts … how they are structured and how they operate.
Please dismiss this feedback if you already have a video like that in your library. Please point me to it if it is the case .
Thanks.
we supposed to learn this in the public school. sadly nowadays you learn gender pronouns before what the US appeal court is.
The whole premise of this video is a Lie the Democrats change the rules in 2013 under Obama and the ninth circuit court on the West Coast is actually overturn 92% of the time the fifth circuit so I actually only been overturned twice you are being manipulated by the Democratic Party and their lackeys
It's fake news
Well, It would be benefifical to be able to refer to people as "he" or "she" or "they" before understanding the complexities of jurisdiction, jurisprudence, etc. I presume that the regular child would prefer to know how to speak before all that, too. @@yijiequ662
@@yijiequ662 They still are required to teach this stuff. The question is whether or not the students care enough to pay attention to it.
I see y’all didn’t mention that the 9th circuit just bypassed the 3 judge panel to avoid a proper ruling on CA gun control and went straight to an en banc hearing. This almost NEVER happens, and shows the strong AGENDA that the circuit has. Furthermore, their agenda is not GOOD, it is BAD because it is frequently very inconsistent with the Constitution.
Multiple judges on the circuit even strongly rebuked their colleagues for going to such lengths to avoid this case being heard by a random 3 judge panel first.
AND, that CA law is BLATANTLY unconstitutional, and the 9th Circuit upheld it, so why aren’t y’all upset over that?
Good on yer Trevor from the UK!
@@thepeach03 Thanks.
The media here in the US is ridiculously biased.
-Trevor from Texas 🤠
@@trev5.566 Yeah I don't trust any corporate media, CNN, FOX, NBC, NEWSMAXX they're all just serving the elite. I being honest, I'm on the left but I hope to move to the US one day for the right to bear arms and the open space to ranch or own a cabin, I wish to be more self sufficient and owning a gun sounds awesome. Gun rights here are basically nonexistent.
I hope you like it in Texas :)
I didn’t realize UA-cam commenters get to decide the constitutionality of laws. You made a correct process argument on how this circuit abuses its power to override laws then agree that a state’s law, upheld by several other courts for years and years and years is suddenly correctly struck down by an activist court?? Where is the consistency in principles here? The adherence to the rule of law and precedent. Gun laws only started to come under attack under Dean v. Heller which itself upended centuries of American precedent to bizarrely interpret blanket personal gun ownership in the US - when the letter of the law in the constitution explicitly ties private gun ownership to membership in state regulated militias. You can’t say one form of judicial activism is ok but then welcome its fruits.
@@themarcusismael13
Sam Adams, the brother of John Adams-THE AUTHOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, said:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
First I will address the comments on court procedure. To keep it short, a courts deviation from normal procedure can show where their priorities are, rightly or wrongly, but it is just procedure, not law.
For example, certain deviations from procedure to make a proper ruling on a pressing matter can be perfectly reasonable.
The Supreme Courts JOB is to properly interpret the Constitution. And an inferior courts job is to interpret the Constitution and follow the SCOTUS’s instructions. And, obviously, I am not a court, but, sir, I can certainly understand my Constitution and defend it.
The Supreme Court has not radically changed its position on the second amendment at all. It has made few 2A related rulings before Heller, but all the past rulings I have heard of have been consistent and strong.
And finally to the “state regulated militias” argument.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE *PEOPLE* to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t say the right of the “militia” or the right of the “government agents.”
It is the right of the PEOPLE, you and me, that CAN NOT be infringed.
There exists no other amendment in the Bill of Rights that is so clear and concise.
The right doesn’t lie with the government, it lies with THE *PEOPLE* . Furthermore, the militia is comprised by citizens, not government agents or employees. And during the time of the founding, the militia members even brought their privately owned weapons. We The People are the Militia.
And if you refuse to believe me, and the Supreme Court, then surely you must believe the Founding Fathers themselves!
George Washington said:
"When government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens duty to take away goverment's right to govern.”
Pretty clear
John Adams said:
"ARMS IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS MAY BE USED AT INDIVIDUAL DISCRETION FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY, THE OVER-THROW OF TYRANNY, OR IN PRIVATE SELF-DEFENSE."
Thomas Jefferson said:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
“Every citizen should be a soldier.
This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Frederick Douglass, a great African American politician, said:
“A man's right rests in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”
Sam Adams, John Adams brother, said:
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
Tench Coxe, a PA Delegate to the Continental Congress, said:
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an Americans.”
Patrick Henry said:"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Maybe do one on the 9th. circuit, they must be fair and balanced for sure.
Way to completely miss the point of the video 👌🏼
Whataboutism
@@RapradaHypocrisy?
It is strange that they do not mention why the change happened in the Senate in 2017.
Because there was no change in 2017 it’s a lie Google it. Democrats change the rules in 2013 under Obama the most radical president we’ve ever had.
I was thinking the same thing, I can’t see why our representatives would think something like that is good for our country.
@@eddie6167 sure they do not mention it because it is a lie in 2013 the Democrats changed the rules so Obama could appoint judges Google it if you do not believe
It did not, the change was done in 2013 by Harry Reid. WSJ is fixing the video - see their pinned comment
@@rs70valkyrie16 fixing what the whole video is nothing but lies. The case of the consumer protection agency in front of the supreme Court right now is actually out of Maine which is not in the fifth circuit the fifth circuit has only had four cases overturned by the supreme the 9th circuit has 92% of it's cases overturned there is not one factual statement in this whole video this type of illegal political propaganda is against the law and a Wall Street journal needs to have its broadcasting licenses removed permanently and the other question you should be asking is why hasn't UA-cam removed this video that is clearly misinformation and incorrect because they are politically aligned with the same radical ideology
You could also say this about the 9th circuit as well since they're just as extreme just on the opposite end.
a short search would show the 5th circuit is much more extreme. the 9th is very sane
Whataboutism
@@PandaProtector thet are the most overturned court appeals court. A super majority of their cases are overturned every year. They are just as bad.
@@Raprada That's not what about ism. What about ism is trying to justify one courts bad behavior by pointing out another. The comments here are saying the 9th is just as bad. That's not what about ism.
@@Ohnothisisbad they are the largest circuit so it makes sense they present the most cases to the supreme court, and the supreme court has a super majority of right wing nuts that consistently overturn precedent and do mental gymnastics to get to their own goals. the fifth circuit is more prone to judge shopping and as most legal observers will tell you, the fifth circuit uses inappropriate tactics even more egregious than the supreme court to reach its conclusions
I don’t understand the issue here, the 9th circuit is well known for being a left wing haven for partisan left wing cases and they do the same thing. And while I agree that reducing the amount of votes needed to confirm judges was a bad thing, you fail to mention it was done by the democrats. so we are just living under the new norms set by them.
I find it odd that you would center your argument on the right leaning district while ignoring the 9th circuit left leaning district. All while not mentioning that the party who changed the procedural rules on confirmation votes was the democrats….hmm🤔
Both can be issues
This is about the 5th circuit, not all…
Hmmm
Your argument is literally a whataboutism
Also need to look at 7th circuit. Recent ruling on AWB is laughably wrong with misquoting statute and precedent - then applying in even more ludicrous manner.
You have a good point about editorial balance. I would remind those who disagree with the OP to remember that dialogue stops when everything becomes a one way street.
If we did every flaw of every appeals court this video would be hours long
Where is the video on the 9th circuit???
Now do the 9th Circus.
5th: 12R:5D
9th: 13R:15D
Ratio is way different
@@kurtniemeyer6314ok so? Unlike the 5th, the 9th is the one that’s gone out of their way to bypass/violate their own circuit court proceeding rules to get certain cases where they want them (Miller V Bonta, Duncan v Bonta), had the most number of rulings overturned by SCOTUS than any other circuit court in the country, and gone out of their way to defy what is clear SCOTUS precedent.
Whataboutism
@@Raprada consistency*
@@RapradaHypocrisy
Can’t wait for the video on the 9th Circuit.
Whataboutism
@@RapradaYou mean Hypocrisy?
@@Raprada
It’s not “whataboutism” when the statement/question is meant to prove bias and double standards. Proving that a speaker is biased is a part of assessing credibility, and it is what distinguishes those that argue in good faith and those that are propagandists.
Try addressing the comparison next time rather than acting like the term “whataboutism” is enough to refute an argument. 😉
@@stevecooper7883it’s not hypocrisy. The 9th Circuit actually judges based on the law. The 5th circuit is literally bankrolled by right wing activists. Just because you don’t like how a judgement is handed down, doesn’t mean it’s “biased.” Reality actually has a liberal bias.
9th circuit isn't nearly as liberal (anymore) as fifth circuit is conservative.
10 years ago absolutely
Is this the only Senate Rule that has been changed recently ?
If Not, what were the others and their effects ?
It Is Past Time To Start Being Watchful
This is a lie google it Democrats change the rules in 2013, so Obama could put extremist left wing judges on the bench. You’re being manipulated and fear mongering by the extreme left.
Once Obama ignored the 60 vote filibuster to get Obamacare passed, the Senate 60 vote norm disappeared.
168 filibusters (at the time) had been made against Presidential nominations, half of them were made against Obama's nominees (to include his nominees for his own Cabinet!), breaking with Senate tradition and forcing the nuclear option. @@badluck5647
@@badluck5647What are you talking about?
@@badluck5647Obamacare passed with 60 votes babe. This seems to have been a fake news story going around back in the day. I remember my dad telling me Obama cheated to get it passed, but it simply isn't true. The democrats had a huge senate majority after the 2006 midterms and 2008 election, so they had the 60 votes required to pass it.
So, whether or not it's "judicial activism" depends on whose ox is being gored. Now, let's talk about that 9th circuit...
I wonder why he would argue that since many of the state supreme courts are elected and that didn’t seem to be that big of a deal. Of course they do have significant problems too.
Glaring omission: the change made in 2013 allowed President Obama the same incentive to nominate extreme leftist judges. The 2017 chage simply extended the Obama Era judicial standard to the Trump administration.
You can thank Harry Reid for pushing for the 2013 changes that made simple majority approval for judges possible. He was warned about the consequences, yet he ignored them
Conservatives held up all the appointments forever. Business of the nation needs to get done; the right will always view obstruction as a viable strategy.
@@nutsackmania So don't cry about Trump appointing 3 supreme court justices then.
Why did the Senate change the 60 vote + home state approval rule?
Because McConnell and Senate Republicans refused vote for any of Obama’s judicial nominees, so Democrats changed the rule to have functional courts while they still had control of the Senate.
And when Republicans took over the Senate, they just held all the held seats open in hope the next president will be a Republican. Just need to look at how disproportionately many more judges Trump was able to appoint.
Clinton (2 terms) appointed 378 judges (2 Supreme Court)
Bush (2 terms) appointed 327 judges (2 Supreme Court)
Obama (2 terms) appointed 329 judges (2 Supreme Court)
Trump (1 term) appointed 234 judges (3 Supreme Court)
cool, now do the most liberal appeals court in the US
Whataboutism
Actually its called being a hypocrite@@Raprada
Funny you complain about this court but not the 9th
So Federal judges are nominated and confirmed by the POTUS and the Senate, neither of which necessarily reflects the majority of the population. Just recently, 2 Presidents have been elected by the MINORITY of voters, and the senate has over-represented Republicans for decades.
To say this is a problematic unique to 5th circuit is disingenuous the 9th circuit has the same problem with the pols reversed, they just find a way to procedurally delay getting to the Supreme Court and to keep their ruling in place because they know it likely won’t go their way.
I think a 5-5-5 approach would produce better results. 5 democrats 5 republicans and 5 chosen by the court for scotus. Then allow them to recommend nominees to the President that are non binding for lower courts.
Oh ok cool, activist judges who act as politicians but in robes. Definitely consistent with their *conservative* ideology and not legislating from the bench!
They are hearing the 'constitutionality of administrative judges' right now. 'Campaign donors' wanted. 😊
"Let's point out only the republican leaning district courts and ignore the extreme decisions of the 9th circuit".
"it is totally trumps fault" Obama did it for all other nominees they just applied it to judicial.
Whataboulism
@@kassiogomes8498 That's moronic, the whole thing including the video title targets this court, which happens to be conservative learning as the issue. You aren't painting the court system. Literally some of these tactics are used in every district court. Partisan politicians appoint politically leaning judges SURPRISE.
The 9th circuit court has the same problems yet you all don’t point that out. So biased.
I predict we will see no changes to this status quo in our lifetimes
So, though the 9th circuit is the MOST overturned appeals court, you are focusing on the 5th Circuit because it produces opinions that you are on the other side of. And the 9th Circuit has not had a "balanced bench" any time in the last 50 years. That is because California senators (just like Texas senators) get a strong say in who goes to their court districts. Please be a bit balanced.
But the Supreme Court was always conservative majority, thus leading to a disconnect between conservative and liberal views. In todays world, 5th circuit court and Supreme Court have the same ideological thinking
I've lost all faith in the JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND MANY OTHER SYSTEMS!!!
This court used to be unbiased and fair. My uncle sat on the Fifth Circuit. Now it is a bunch of hacks.
Our country is a joke.
the court too extreme? The 9th circus of course!
So the judicial system is working and has conservatives in the south and WSJ calls it extreme without looking evenhandedly to the circuts on the coasts... someones bias is showing.
It is 2023 and some people are still blaming Trump for everything they don’t like
This video is as skewed in political opinion as its narrative claims the 5th Circuit is skewed. Dobbs happened in Mississippi and venue was proper only in the 5th Circuit. The creator of this video neglected to remind the viewer that the 5th was instrumental in placing the power of the judiciary behind 1960's era Civil Rights Legislation. According the to the New York Times in an obituary written about John Minor Wisdom, Judge Wisdom's Opinion brought about desegregation in the USA. The building on Camp St in New Orleans was renamed by the Court in his honor. What you can say about the 5th Circuit is that the judges, despite of who nominated them, take logic and precedent seriously.
😂😂😂 what about the most liberal appeals courts in the country? Hint: they are in the locations where violent crime is the highest in the country.
Whataboutism
@@RapradaHypocrisy
That would be Alaska, followed by New Mexico, Tennessee, Arkansas and Arizona.
Actually the top 10 states for violent crime, all but 1 is conservative.
Too Extreme??? My bad I thought this vid was about 9th circuit.
With the 2 party system, this gives a glimpse as to the risks if the filibuster is abolished
Vote Kennedy 2024
Part of the reason judges are so important right now though, and why people want a strongman like Trump, is that with the filibuster it is nearly impossible to pass legislation. The filibuster simply moves the policy debate from the legislature to the executive office, or the courtroom.
But that way things is nowdays the filibuster just stops political development from any side. Meanwhile the world continues to further and further away from the policy decide many years ago. Dosen't the US need more policy for today challenges rather than 30 years ago?
These rule changes were brought about in spite of the filibuster’s continued existence. This is a weird assertion to make that runs counter to the facts. Parties will abuse and overstep the bounds of power even with arcane procedural rules like the filibuster.
The Dems came within an inch of eliminating it last year. Thanks to Sinema and Manchin, that did not happen.
Democrats can blame themselves for these changes
Yeaaa !!!! Show us respect new Orleans has always been a titan of legal thought
Why is the abortion pill controversial? It is none of the court’s business anyway. It is a woman’s perogative.
America needs conservative everything
No, it needs impartial matter of fact everything.
It needs unbiased and uncorrupt judges
5:52 Trump in fact appointed few judges compared to previous Presidents.
Man, as soon as I heard her voice/tempo, I knew it was going to be propaganda.
Love how they ignore the 9th circuit that has more overturned cases from far left judges
I think that one is more easily explainable by ideological differences between the right leaning supreme court and the left leaning 9th circuit, whereas it is interesting that the 5th circuit, which is supposedly politically aligned with the supreme court, is seeing so much failure.
It would make sense that a CONSERVATIVE supreme court is overturning a liberal lower court, no? I mean yall can't be THAT slow.
Theyre talking about a conservative leaning scotus overturning conservative circuit court cases.
Your point is completely irrelevant to this subject lol
a constructive appeal is to get discounts from lawyers fees
Pretending all or most cases are decided politically....ignorant.
Informative thanks
Sometimes? How about almost always. The 5th circuit is nuts.
Every CC is sometimes too extreme for the Supreme Court
Once Obama ignored the 60 vote filibuster to get Obamacare passed, the Senate 60 vote norm was broken.
Shhhhhh, stop with those pesky facts.
Obamacare was passed by reconciliation through the 2011 fiscal budget. This was the save way the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed in 2017 during the Trump Administration. Maybe do some research before you keep posting nonsense.
@@Einsteinbomb Budget reconciliation was supposed to be for spending, revenue, and the federal debt limit. Obama misused the process to pass Obamacare without the standard 60 votes the bill needed. This was considered a broken taboo at the time. However, once the taboo was broken, the respect for the 60 vote threshold disappeared for both parties.
You can try to rewrite history but the facts are the facts.
Yeah obamacare saves lives Gop wants to take them away
@@Einsteinbomband both of them were terrible.
The Rahimi case is about if 2A rights can be taken away without due process,
merely via a civil restraining order.
No, is the correct answer per SCOTUS, post Bruen.
The burden is now on the government to find a law during the Founding Era that stripped 2A rights with no due process.
Post Bruen, "balancing tests" are now strictly prohibited when judging a 2A case.
As with 1A, our 2A Rights may no longer be "balanced" away due to a claimed "government interest."
Other "controversial" decisions by the 5th?
Restoring gun rights to 18 to 20 years old, who are indeed part of the "People" noted in the Constitution.
Most common sense comment, of course in a time of lies and progressivism they’d attack the most constitutionally sound court of appeals.
I don’t believe gun laws exist other than to keep poor and minority populations down. I believe gun laws benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Very unusual for the wsj to make so many errors and have such a far left view. I bet this was put together by someone with access and not being supervised.
“Have a far left view”
You mean you disagree…
Facts don’t care about your feelings Philbert
This is what happens when you put a bunch of crazies on the court.
I thought judges had to be impartial, ignorance is bliss.
judicial should be appointed on merit not elected 😅 its the one thing USA should learn from India.
Federal judges aren't elected. They are appointed. There is no objective way to choose judges by merit alone. All these judges have the merit to be judges.
Actually it is only elected in some states and it seems to work okay
so its a lot like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Court as its very religious
Honestly if conservatives hate the Taliban and Iranian theocracy why do some of them want to institute a Christian theocracy?
@@seanhartnett79 similar to why the nazis and communists hate each other even though they are both totalitarian ideologies
How to be Unaccountable . Ad.
50 different states for the win!😊
It all moves Left.
It seems you forgot to mention Obama as appointing polarizing judges. Funny that.
1:54 - Lolz Demz change the rules and it backfired hard 😂 Politicians really so short sighted sometimes 🤦🏾♂️ They thought they had 2017 in the bag, imagine if Trump didn't win y'all should be thankful 💀😅
Should definitely return to 60 minimum votes and home state requirements
Has the wall st. Journal never heard of the 9th circuit court? Those crazies are overturned more than they aren’t hahaha
Seems like those judges aren't fit to interpret law if they get it wrong so many times...
You can’t get an interpretation “wrong”. That’s why they’re there. To INTERPRET. if there was a wrong and right we wouldn’t need anyone to interpret, it would be apparent. You just don’t like how they’re interpreting.
This is all a lie Google it in 2013 the Democrats change the rules so Obama good point extremist judges and to your comment the ninth circuit court on the West Coast is actually over turned 92% of the time because it’s full of extremist judges
@@thehorizontries4759How can they overturn it if it's not wrong?
If a judge constantly gets their decision overturned they shouldn't be a judge. That's their only job so it shouldn't be that hard
@@rynor2691 i agree, the 9th circuit is a major problem as they get overturned far more than any other circuit.
@@rynor2691you can overturn it because the opinion of the judge isn’t the opinion of everyone else
Needs to be reformed.
why not 3xtand your survey to the other courts of appeal how about the 9 court of appeals too..progressive ?
Revolution!
Wow this man is STRUGGLING to speak clearly. Is it a speech impediment or a weird American accent I haven't heard before?
Naturally, call out the conservative Fifth Circuit with zero mention of the liberal Ninth and how radically they are. Mhm
my god this is so hideously drawn out for what should be a 1 minute video it reminds me why the legacy media is dead
get off youtube and stay on your websites
Yep
Should make a video on how bad and extreme the ninth circuit is.
Republicans should be trying to make every district like the 5th.
Democrats should be trying to make every district like the 9th.
@@AnimMouse the difference is I can point to the Constitution and justify the 5th’s decisions and the 9th jumps through hoops and made up theory yo justify theirs.
@@hallmichael35 really? Please do so then. Focus on the ones the Supreme Court overturned.
within 30 seconds of listening in the other room to this auto-played video my thoughts are "ugh, some super bias dogma is about to be preached" but when I saw it was the wsj, I was like, "ah that makes sense, not just me, it's them."
He kind of reminds me of Filbert, and I love it. 🐢 👓 😂
The whole premise of this video is A lie the Democrats change the rules in 2013 google it
Boring……
x,,.,,..,.,
The ( Masonic main computer ), has a program , most of this program has the syntax of :
if ( the person is thinking about subject 1 )
then ( make him think about subject 2 )
if ( the person is thinking about subject 3 )
then ( make him think about subject 4 )
and so on ......
example 1:
if ( the arabic leader is thinking about fighting israel )
then ( make him think about a deal with israel )
if ( the arabic leader is thinking about better schools )
then ( make him think about more singers )
example 2 :
if ( spain leader is thinking about joining force with EU )
then ( make him think about leaving EU )
if ( spain leader is thinking about facing US )
then ( make him cooperate with US )
........
it is so important to protect leaders from signals that target the brain ....... because , effecting one person ( the leader ) is equal to effect the whole country ( the one he is running )
to protect the leader , solution 1: do not attend ( opponent environment )
solution 2: building with multi floors ( like 5 floors ) , staying on the 1st floor can prevent signals from reaching you ( blocked by all the floors above )
Love the Fifth Circuit Court for traditional peoples.
Donald Trump thrives in chaos
As does the election of Democrats to public office.
One of the most informative and unbiased WSJ videos
I believe that both 5th and 9th circuits tend to have the most decisions overturned due to both appeal courts having a right and left leaning, respectively. This video fails to acknowledge the left leaning bais in the 9th, whose cases are also overturned, and is showing the writers own bias is only looking for right leaning cases that are controversial.
There is a reason a prior Justice called it "the naughty ninth".
Does not knowing what a woman is make a Supreme Court justice candidate a moderate?
Again, TRUMP. Surprised? I'm not.
If President Biden gets reelected next year, he potentially could nominate 1 or even 2 more Justices to The Supreme Court (replacing Thomas &/or Alito), which would balance out the 3 Justices Trump (thanks to McConnell) nominated to The Supreme Court.
If.... sure... what if Kennedy is elected?
@MrPhilbert1981 I don’t support Kennedy but judicially speaking having an independent centrist candidate might help a point some reasonable justices rather than the extremist ones we’ve had recently. Eg alito.
Future presidents should appoint new Supreme Court Justices from the 5th Circuit. The one with the most originalist judges
liberal nonsense
Just like Vox
Trump is a genius and he did a great job straightening out the courts.
I mean, liberals do make annoying decisions - allow felons to vote 😂Cmon! We need the reps