The Court That’s Sometimes Too Extreme for the Supreme Court | WSJ 

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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 RU-vid removed this video that is clearly misinformation and incorrect because they are politically aligned with the same radical ideology

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)

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

5th: 12R:5D 9th: 13R:15D Ratio is way different

Whataboutism

Or maybe the circuit court that covers a FIFTH of the US population

Way to completely miss the point of the video 👌🏼

Whataboutism

​@@RapradaHypocrisy?

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

They Want To Get rid of Any Republican D judge Cause They're Still Sticking To Traditions

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 RU-vid 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."

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

The whole premise of this video is A lie the Democrats change the rules in 2013 google it

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

“Have a far left view” You mean you disagree…

Facts don’t care about your feelings Philbert

Yep

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.

No, it needs impartial matter of fact everything.

It needs unbiased and uncorrupt judges

As does the election of Democrats to public office.

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.

If.... sure... what if Kennedy is elected?

Just like Vox

Whataboutism

Actually its called being a hypocrite@@Raprada