President Trump’s travel ban has sparked a new wave of disagreement among the federal judges. The spat was seen during the public display of disagreement recorded by the FIVE 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges recorded their disagreement with the issued restraining on Trump’s travel ban last month. It was because of their decision that Trump’s first travel ban was halted.
The fight ensued and took a dramatic scene on Friday, when the five Republican judges filled other caustic attack on the previous opinion. The two liberal judges publicly accused the conservative counterparts who tried to make an end-run across the traditional judicial procedure.
Judge Alex Kozinski had initially blasted the earlier ruling out of executive order for essentially ignoring the fact that most of those who might have been affected by Trump’s travel/immigration ban have no constitutional rights.
“This St. Bernard is being wagged by a flea on its tail,” Kozinski wrote, joined by Judges Carlos Bea, Jay Bybee, Sandra Ikuta and Consuelo Callahan.
“My colleagues err by failing to vacate this hasty opinion. The panel’s unnecessary statements on this subject will shape litigation near and far. We’ll quest aimlessly for true intentions across a sea of insults and hyperbole. It will be (as it were) a huge, total disaster.”
It did not go well with Federal Judge Stephen Reihardt, who openly accused the colleagues of making efforts to litigate over Trump’s executive order.
“Judge Kozinski’s diatribe, filed today, confirms that a small group of judges, having failed in their effort to undo this court’s decision with respect to President Trump’s first Executive Order, now seek on their own, under the guise of a dissent from the denial of en banc rehearing of an order of voluntary dismissal, to decide the constitutionality of a second Executive Order that is not before this court,” wrote Reinhardt, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter. “That is hardly the way the judiciary functions. Peculiar indeed!”
on Friday, Marsha Berzon, the other liberal 9th Circuit judge, opposed rejection of the colleagues’ ruling to underscore the earlier rule out.
Brezon wrote, an appointee of Clinton era,
“Judges are empowered to decide issues properly before them, not to express their personal views on legal questions no one has asked them. There is no appeal currently before us, and so no stay motion pending that appeal currently before us either. All the merits commentary in the dissents filed by a small minority of the judges of this court is entirely out of place. My dissenting colleagues should not be engaging in a one-sided attack on a decision by a duly constituted panel of this court,” Berzon added. “We will have this discussion, or one like it. But not now.”
Kozinski accused his liberal colleagues who tried to shush the court’s public debate on ban.
“My colleagues’ effort to muzzle criticism of an egregiously wrong panel opinion betrays their insecurity about the opinion’s legal analysis,” wrote Kozinski, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
After the ruling of Trump’s first executive order he signed an other a revised version of the first order. The second order bars the issuance of visas to Citizens from six Muslim majority countries for 90 days and shuns refugees’ entry into the USA for 120 days.
The major parts of Trump’s travel ban were blocked by two Federal judges of Hawaii and Maryland.