Judges must apply the law as written, not as their instincts tell them Congress probably meant it. Language, when properly interpreted and literally applied, provides a meaningful constraint on judicial action; when we allow ourselves to be guided by intuition that Congress didn’t really mean what it said, we are no longer interpreting laws, we are making them.
—  United States v. Phelps, 895 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1990) abrogated by Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 113 S. Ct. 2050, 124 L. Ed. 2d 138 (1993)
There is something creepy and un-American about such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive, mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.

United States v. Pineda-Moreno

617 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2010)