9th Circuit's Rulings Frequently Overturned (Repost of 9th Circuit Court Article) (Rogue Court?)

The Washington Times ^ | 06/28/2002 | Joyce Howard Price (1st posted by kattracks 06/27/02)

[DoughtyOne]

The federal appeals court in San Francisco that found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday is known as an activist court whose decisions regularly are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal analysts said yesterday.

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' liberal record ... and its reputation as the most overturned court in the country ... have almost grown to the status of an urban myth," said Steven Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation.

Mr. Fitschen noted that in 1996-97, the Supreme Court issued opinions in nearly 90 cases. "It reversed 27 of the 28 rulings it got from the 9th Circuit, and 17 times, the reversals were unanimous," he said.

Thomas L. Jipping, senior fellow in legal studies for Concerned Women of America, said the court's Pledge decision was more evidence that the 9th District judges "believe they can make law and that they can hijack the culture and run the country," rather than follow the Constitution.

In 1997, Mr. Jipping led efforts against judicial activism. In congressional hearings, he identified as an abuser of judicial power Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that deemed the Pledge's phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

By that time, the Weekly Standard had described Judge Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter, as the "country's most audacious liberal judge" and "one of the most overturned judges in history."

The "noteworthy" rulings in Judge Reinhardt's resume include many that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. In one such opinion, the judge wrote that a Mexican doctor who helped kill a Drug Enforcement Administration agent should not have been forcibly brought to this country for trial over Mexico's objections.

Judge Reinhardt also ruled that a provision in the Arizona Constitution mandating English as the official language of government was "overbroad in violation of the First Amendment." The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the ruling.

In 1992, Judge Reinhardt denounced the Supreme Court, former President Ronald Reagan and President Bush for what he called a lack of confidence in the federal courts by blacks. In a commencement address, he called the federal courts a "bastion of white power."

Anthony T. Caso, general counsel for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the 9th Circuit's rate of reversal is "definitely ahead of the average" and has not gone unnoticed by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Caso recalled that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, visited with members of that bench several years ago and focused attention on the fact "that they were overturned on a regular basis."

To reduce that problem, Mr. Caso said, Justice O'Connor recommended that the 9th Circuit opt for having the full 11-member bench decide cases more often, rather than relying on three-judge panels like the one that ruled this week in the Pledge case.

Yesterday, one of the federal appeals court judges put the Pledge ruling on hold indefinitely. The 9th Circuit includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.

The Supreme Court yesterday was unable to provide figures on 9th Circuit reversals, saying it did not classify such data according to circuits.

But the San Francisco Chronicle said there were years in the 1980s and 1990s when the circuit was overturned more than 80 percent of the time.

The Los Angeles Times said the circuit has been reversed in 12 of 16 cases this year. (During year 2002)

Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[lizma]

they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.

Sounds good but could they even if they wanted to?

[Republican Red]

Remember all:

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, is the wife of Justice Stephen Reinhardt.

[Common Tator]

I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.

Get the smelling salts randita...the tator is about to agree with you.. easy... easy... I told you to sid down.

Yes I too, believe in states rights.

The best thing the Supremes could do is take the case away from the 9th and then declare the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Case and game over....Election proceeds on schedule.

That my dear is a distinct possibility. It is what the Scalia-Thomas group would want to do.

I would bet your conservative heart could support the Supremes doing that....

[metacognative]

I WANT TO FILE A CLASS ACTION complaining that llegal aliiens wiith motor voter 'rights', cancel my republican vote. I am beng denied my voice by democRAT CHEATS!

[DoughtyOne]

I have never seen her make a presentation on television that didn't repulse me. She is disgusting.

[Poohbah]

My take too, but it will be interesting to see how the democrat Attorney General for California words his appeal. Will he mount a sound legal challenge?

Doesn't matter--another defendant WILL mount a sound challenge.

[South40]

Don't disfrankincense me!

We use punch card ballots here in San Diego County and no one cares.

[Brilliant]

Only in the age of liberal judicial activism. In the good ole days, the law was the law, and if you did not like it--then tough.

[DoughtyOne]

We've used them up here for thirty years plus too. I never had a problem.

[lasereye]

If people get outraged enough, they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.

They can't recall the judges and the legislature can't impeach them. These are FEDERAL judges.

If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections).

What does that have to do with overturning a decision a Federal Court has made?

I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.

So if it's not a national issue, then the SCOTUS should reverse this interference by a FEDERAL court.

[lasereye]

I saw the coverage of this on See BS tonight. They reported, without any comment, the court's conclusion that using punch cards could invalidate 40,000 votes - putting a graphic on the screen showing the number 40,000. If true it would be a good argument, but where did this number come from? They didn't say. Chances are the ACLU just made it up, and the liberal judges simply repeated it in their decision.

They also said the court relied heavily on the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore, wherein using different methods of counting votes, i.e. counting dimpled chads in a couple of counties, machine counts in the rest. What does that have to do with using different kinds of machines to register the vote? They're two completely different things.

[DoughtyOne]

Would that be the SCOTUS vacating an order by the 9th?

[sd-joe]

>> "If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections)." <<

That is just the problem. The 9th circuit is preventing the people from doing their work.

The people have called for a recall election ( a totally democratic process of the people covered in the state Constition ). The 9th circus is stopping this from happening (or at least delaying it, but justice delayed is justice lost).

[Revolting cat!]

So use guys think that SCOTUS is going to reverse COANUS regarding the recall of GOTSOC? What does POTUS think of all that?

[DoughtyOne]

I agree that they are two different things also.

[adamyoshida]

The 9th Circuit is a Federal Court. The people of California can't recall them. The US Congress would have to impeach and convict them.

[South40]

lol!

[sd-joe]

>> "That brings up some of the same issues we had in Florida." <<

One of the major problems in Fla was that the different districts were interpreting the questionable ballots differently. Some were counting hanging chads, some not, etc. In addition, the recount was only for some districts, not the whole state.

These were the key issues. The fact that some districts were using punch cards and others were using optical scanners, was not an issue, if I remember correctly.

And very very importantly, the legal challenges in Fla were for an election that happened, with some results that could be challenged. In CA, this is a Pre-emptive strike on what coulda maybe happen in an election that has not happened yet. This would be a scary legal line. If elections (the key voice of the people) could be stopped on the basis of what someone dreamed up could maybe happen, we could lose our ability to even have elections.

[Humidston]

Looks to me like Boy Billy and Gray have been busy on the phones, as well as campaigning in a black church. Why am I NOT surprised?

[DoughtyOne]

Don't you wish you could prove that. I know I do. If those two yahoos were on the phone regarding this, that would be one way to get rid of some federal judges.