Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution

[LRThunder]

I agree, as follows:YesNo.

Why not? All it starts is getting the foot in the door and for all the hoopla about the federal government (executive, legislative branches) “suppressing” rights, the judicial branch can’t claim innocence either: Dead Scot, Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade, the New London Eminent Domain case.

 

[rpp]

This is much more believable than WanderAimlessly’s claim, but I’d still like to see the data.

From the 2002, Supreme Court session:

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.

Here is the link.
centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm

Please recall there are only 9 Federal Appeals Circuit Courts.

 

[mark_a]

I wonder where San Francisco gets it’s name?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

This is much more believable than WanderAimlessly’s claim, but I’d still like to see the data.

Just 2 years that were at the top of my searched.

On appeal in the 2002 year, 75% (18/24) of the appeals

Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term.

Source

For 2003, 76% (19 of 25) if the appeals:

Notably, 9th Circuit rulings constituted about 32 percent of both the cases (25 of 79) and the reversals (19 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by written slip opinions this term.

Source

And before someone split hairs, I never said the most overturned, I said the majority.

 

[Digitonomy]

Your claim was

The only consolation is the majority of their [9th Circuit] decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court

From the data on the page you just now cited, we can calculate that the 9th Circuit hears approximately 5100 cases a year. If 18 or 19 of those are reversed by the Supreme Court, that represents a reversal rate of 0.4%.

So, where things stand now is that assuming the 9th Circuit agrees to hear an appeal of this case, there is a 0.4% chance that the Supreme Court will reverse it.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges, by providing numbers that are only applicable to appeals heard by the Supreme Court, which are rare indeed - there is no particular reason to believe that the Supreme Court will hear such an appeal.

 

[Digitonomy]

I do not know if the “majority” of their decisions are overturned, but theirs is highest rate of overturned decisions…
From the 2002, Supreme Court session:
Here is the link.
centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm

Thanks for the info. The case is still not clear cut. If we look at the 5100 decisions made by the 9th Circuit each year (at which stage this decision is about to be), they may well have a larger percentage overturned, but it’s hard to be certain - we need the numbers from other circuit courts to compare. The source you cited notes that they have more cases overturned than other circuit courts, but due to their size they no doubt have larger dockets than other courts, so it’s possible their rate is not the highest.

If we look only at those cases heard by the Supreme Court, based on the 2002 and 2003 figures mentioned by WanderAimlessly, the Ninth Circuit had virtually the same rate of decisions overturned as other courts (37/49=76% for the Ninth, 118/159=74% for all other courts). So by that measure, it is pretty much impossible that the Ninth had the highest rate compared with every other court.

 

[rr1213]

The 9th Circuit is by far the most reversed federal appellate circuit in the country. As someone else pointed out, however, very few cases of any type are actually accepted for review by the Supreme Court.

 

[Digitonomy]

If their resolution is allowed to stand, they can start discriminating against Catholics or anybody that doesn’t bow down to pro-abortion and pro-gay agendas.

Digitonomy:

No.

Why not? All it starts is getting the foot in the door and for all the hoopla about the federal government (executive, legislative branches) “suppressing” rights, the judicial branch can’t claim innocence either: Dead Scot, Plessy vs Ferguson, Roe vs Wade, the New London Eminent Domain case.

The fact that a limp spineless resolution by a city council gets passed does not mean that the Constitution is on its way out the window. The city council doesn’t have a lot of power, they know it, which is why they made a resolution rather than taking any real action. Keep in mind that this is the same city whose gay marriages were rather quickly stopped by Sacramento, and soon ruled null and void by the state courts.

The judge ruled in favor of the city council because weak politicians are free to foam at the mouth; that indeed is one of their jobs, so long as they don’t actually violate anyone’s rights. I can’t defend much else that the judge said in his decision, but as to the facts he was correct.

 

[Digitonomy]

The 9th Circuit is by far the most reversed federal appellate circuit in the country.

Well-stated; this is overwhelmingly true, so long as you’re talking total numbers rather than percentages.

 

[rpp]

Your claim wasFrom the data on the page you just now cited, we can calculate that the 9th Circuit hears approximately 5100 cases a year. If 18 or 19 of those are reversed by the Supreme Court, that represents a reversal rate of 0.4%.

So, where things stand now is that assuming the 9th Circuit agrees to hear an appeal of this case, there is a 0.4% chance that the Supreme Court will reverse it.

You are trying to compare apples and oranges, by providing numbers that are only applicable to appeals heard by the Supreme Court, which are rare indeed - there is no particular reason to believe that the Supreme Court will hear such an appeal.

Not a valid comparison. For realistic numbers, you must limit your sample only to those cases which were appealed to the Supreme Court. There are numerous decisions that are not appealed for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the legal decision rendered, such the financial or legal ability of the partties involved. Supreme Cout appeals are auite expensice, six-figures minimum!

 

[rpp]

The fact that a limp spineless resolution by a city council gets passed does not mean that the Constitution is on its way out the window. The city council doesn’t have a lot of power, they know it, which is why they made a resolution rather than taking any real action. Keep in mind that this is the same city whose gay marriages were rather quickly stopped by Sacramento, and soon ruled null and void by the state courts.

The judge ruled in favor of the city council because weak politicians are free to foam at the mouth; that indeed is one of their jobs, so long as they don’t actually violate anyone’s rights. I can’t defend much else that the judge said in his decision, but as to the facts he was correct.

In this I am afraid I have to disagree. Court precedents are very powerful. It does not matter if it is a “non-binding resolutiuon”, if it is allowed to stand, then legal discrimination of the Catholic Church, and all other Protestant Christian denominations, will be permitted due to this precedent. Passing a law that states Churches cannot speak out against laws favoring homosexuals is not a far stretch. Trust me, the ACLU will use the decision to increase their effort to suppress Christianity. And they may well succeed. It is this very complacency which the enemies of the Church count on. I know, before my conversion, I was one of those enemies.

 

[LRThunder]

The fact that a limp spineless resolution by a city council gets passed does not mean that the Constitution is on its way out the window. The city council doesn’t have a lot of power, they know it, which is why they made a resolution rather than taking any real action. Keep in mind that this is the same city whose gay marriages were rather quickly stopped by Sacramento, and soon ruled null and void by the state courts.

The judge ruled in favor of the city council because weak politicians are free to foam at the mouth; that indeed is one of their jobs, so long as they don’t actually violate anyone’s rights. I can’t defend much else that the judge said in his decision, but as to the facts he was correct.

As I said, it’s not the resolution itself, it’s the attitude. It basically says that Catholics aren’t welcome because of their beliefs. That gives de facto permission to start showing more hostility towards them and perhaps Protestants because they don’t bow down to the pro-abortion, pro-gay rights alter.

 

[Digitonomy]

There are numerous decisions that are not appealed for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the legal decision rendered, such the financial or legal ability of the partties involved. Supreme Cout appeals are auite expensice, six-figures minimum!

Which is why it’s incorrect to console oneself about this case by stating that the majority of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned.

Both a plain reading of what WanderAimlessly said, as well as its context in this thread, suggest that what prompted his remark is this case, one of the 5100.

 

[rpp]

Which is why it’s incorrect to console oneself about this case by stating that the majority of Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned.

Both a plain reading of what WanderAimlessly said, as well as its context in this thread, suggest that what prompted his remark is this case, one of the 5100.

Huh? I am sorry but I do not understand your point. The fact that they have more cases appealed than any other court and the more those appeals are overturned than any other court is not valid?

I have done my share of statistical analysis (it is part of my job!) and I think those aspects must be taken into account.

 

[rr1213]

Huh? I am sorry but I do not understand your point. The fact that they have more cases appealed than any other court and the more those appeals are overturned than any other court is not valid?

I have done my share of statistical analysis (it is part of my job!) and I think those aspects must be taken into account.

It is pertinent from the big picture standpoint. It does not necessarily mean however that an erroneous ruling by the 9th Circuit in this case would be overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

[Digitonomy]

Huh? I am sorry but I do not understand your point. The fact that they have more cases appealed than any other court and the more those appeals are overturned than any other court is not valid?

There are obviously a number of ways to look at this, and make statistical comparisons, as we’ve done over the past several posts. WanderAimlessly didn’t like the decision in the OP. But, he suggested, he could console himself by the fact that most Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned. In other words, be annoyed but don’t worry a lot, because this decision will probably be reversed.

I said, no, I don’t think a reversal is likely at all, and therefore there is not much to console yourself about in this case.

Based on the data WanderAimlessly replied with, he may have meant to say “In the unlikely event it ever gets to the Supreme Court, we can console ourselves that it will probably be overturned.” At this point in the process, however, there is a 99.6% chance that the Supreme Court won’t overturn it.

 

[rpp]

There are obviously a number of ways to look at this, and make statistical comparisons, as we’ve done over the past several posts. WanderAimlessly didn’t like the decision in the OP. But, he suggested, he could console himself by the fact that most Ninth Circuit decisions are overturned. In other words, be annoyed but don’t worry a lot, because this decision will probably be reversed.

I said, no, I don’t think a reversal is likely at all, and therefore there is not much to console yourself about in this case.

Based on the data WanderAimlessly replied with, he may have meant to say “In the unlikely event it ever gets to the Supreme Court, we can console ourselves that it will probably be overturned.” At this point in the process, however, there is a 99.6% chance that the Supreme Court won’t overturn it.

Okay, thank you. I am not certain I agree with your bleak assesment, but at least I understand your logic.

I do hope those who broght the appeal will have the funds and wherewithall to file a good, high-quality appeal and the the Supreme Court will hear the case and overturn it.

 

[flazor1]

What legal force, if any, does this resolution have? If it is just the Board of Supervisors expressing its opinion (i.e., sucking up to their constituents) then I don’t see how it can be un-Constitutional.

It doesn’t need legal force, it just has to be a government action. It is unconstitutional because it is a government action, discussed by government officials paid by taxpayers on government time, in a building paid for by taxpayers.

 

[flazor1]

From the 2002, Supreme Court session:

Here is the link.
centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm

Please recall there are only 9 Federal Appeals Circuit Courts.

Good show on the cite. IMO, even the 9th won’t uphold this turkey. I’m sure Thomas More will win.

As for the purpose of the resolution, it is a way for lawmakers to say unconstitutional things without having to actually pass an unconstitutional law. A resolution is supposed to express the “sense of” the body passing it, so it is far from harmless, as it is the voice of government.

Resolutions are being used lately to try to chill free speech on whatever topic the particular liberal poltician wants people to shut up about: criticizing Islam, speaking up for Israel, speaking up for the teachings of the Church. They get points with their constituents, they get free press coverage (this confers automatic civil-rights hero status), and they and the reporters who print it as a news story get blacken the eye of whatever group it is they hate, in this case, the Church.

Where I live we’ve had state and county resolutions supposedly denouncing hate speech but actually endorsing Islam as holy and therefore beyond criticism.

Here’s another example of flagrant flouting of the 1st Amendment by a public official trying to stifle a free press:

dearbornunderground.blogspot.com/2006/09/hr-214-lest-we-forget.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

It doesn’t need legal force, it just has to be a government action. It is unconstitutional because it is a government action, discussed by government officials paid by taxpayers on government time, in a building paid for by taxpayers.

We might as well ask, “What legal force would it have if the President and members of Congress habitually used the N-word?”

The answer is, it would have no legal force. But it would signal to government officials at all levels that discrimination against Blacks is accepted. Blacks would not get hired for government jobs. Those that had government jobs would not get promoted.

Prejudice is an insidious but very real thing – which is why we quite rightly decry the use of the N-word.