Sen. Sullivan mentions that some folks who want to keep the 9th Circuit’s current geographical jurisdiction decry any split as a radical solution. He explains that Congress has historically split such districts, since the first three-district system was in place. Leaving it alone is the real radical action, he writes. Gaffer, your approach is certainly different than leaving the 9th circuit alone, but it’s just as radical as the status quo in abandoning equal justice for all. If we can’t do better, by far, then we’re past the time for trying to save our precious experiment in self-government. And if you believe that, why are you here?
I guess I could ask you why you are here also.
My comment was more along the lines of the historical and equitable utility of the 9th in their rulings. Given so vast an area with very widely differing populations throughout its large realm and all the political, social and freedom concerns cannot be the same, nor can one expect a radical court (my opinion) from SF be expected to give equitable service (although its 7 states are being inundated with transplants and illegals bringing the same kind of issues with them).
To my mind it’s an extra impediment to rulings that actually need decision by the USSC. I know it cannot be disestablished in reality; to that end I guess I’d settle for splitting it up.
So large an area encompassing