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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

FBaggins

(28,530 posts)

10. I don't think they'll take it

Reply to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #6)

Mon Oct 20, 2025, 09:32 PM

Oct 20

I don't think they'll think that it can win at the SCOTUS level. Might not even be just 6-3

Note that the Newsom v. Trump decision was also two Trump judges in the 9th and was based on similar reasoning. They're still considering whether to hear it en banc four months later

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

17 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Appeals court lets Trump deploy Oregon National Guard to Portland [View all] BumRushDaShow Oct 20 OP

The Nazis are embedded everywhere these days. Blues Heron Oct 20 #1

Oregon should refuse angrychair Oct 20 #2

Yes, there needs to be an immediate appeal to the full 9th Circuit. 2 Trump appointees made this ruling. SunSeeker Oct 20 #5

They should give them refresher training on what is an isn't illegal order. nilram Oct 20 #3

2-1 decision, 2 Trump appointees sided with Trump. SunSeeker Oct 20 #4

I'm sure the full 9th circuit will overturn this ruling Fiendish Thingy Oct 20 #6

I don't think they'll take it FBaggins Oct 20 #10

But did they issue a stay pending appeal? Fiendish Thingy Oct 20 #13

More info from USA Today and Democracy Docket SARose Oct 20 #7

How can we still have faith in the legal system? BlueKota Oct 20 #8

There may be an en banc rehearing of this ruling LetMyPeopleVote Oct 20 #9

Awesome! SARose Oct 20 #16

Here's a vexing legal question: hadEnuf Oct 20 #11

That's isn't really a legal question FBaggins Oct 20 #12

I guess I should have indicated sarcasm. hadEnuf Oct 20 #14

And why should the judiciary continue to give "deference" SARose Oct 20 #15

It's awful. hadEnuf Oct 21 #17