There has been a lot of discourse about judges and their performances on the bench since the 9th circuit clearly ignored the law and upheld the stay on Trump’s temporary immigration travel ban. Well, maybe some in the judiciary are having second thoughts.
A judge on a San Francisco-based appeals court has requested that the entire court vote on whether to review a three-judge panel’s decision to not reinstate President Donald Trump’s travel ban.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit instructed the administration and the plaintiffs, Washington and Minnesota, to file legal briefs by next Thursday with their opinions about whether the ruling should be reviewed “en banc.”
That process would task an 11-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case. The three-judge panel unanimously declined to lift a temporary restraining order on Trump’s executive order on immigration and refugees on Thursday evening.
… The three-judge panel that heard the case this week included Judges William C. Canby Jr., a Jimmy Carter appointee; Richard R. Clifton, a George W. Bush appointee; and Michelle T. Friedland, a Barack Obama appointee.
The judge who requested the vote on whether to review the ruling is unknown. A majority of the court’s active judges would need to agree to rehear the case.
For a governmental branch that is supposed to be free from politics, this branch certainly is showing its worst side.