Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Split Decision. Time to break up the Ninth Circuit.
National Review ^ | September 16, 2003 | Andrew Peyton Thomas

Posted on 09/16/2003 8:50:42 AM PDT by Credo

Split Decision

Time to break up the Ninth Circuit.

By Andrew Peyton Thomas

PHOENIX, ARIZONA — Once or twice a year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hands down a ruling so astounding and earth-rattling that the entire nation is forced to take notice, and even commiserate with the poor souls who must live under this tyranny. So it was Monday, when the latest geyser of nonsense came forth in the form of a ruling halting the California recall election. This decision recalled the activism of the Florida supreme court in the 2000 presidential election. But unlike the judges in Florida, the liberal suzerains who reign over the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit count as their subjects more than one out of six Americans. Those of us who throughout the west who live under this rule — and who have pled for a peaceful separation from the Ninth Circuit — have met with stiff resistance from those who wish to preserve this last empire of untrammeled judicial liberalism.

The Ninth Circuit is by far the largest federal judicial circuit in the nation. This colossus remains intact, despite substantial growing pains, because liberal partisans in Congress have steadfastly thwarted Republican-led attempts to divide the circuit into two more manageable districts. The Ninth Circuit was established in 1866, at a time when most of its current constituent states did not even exist. Now, the circuit comprises nine western states and two Pacific territories — the fastest growing part of the country. In both size (1.3 million square miles) and population (more than 50 million people), the Ninth Circuit dwarfs the other eleven circuits.

Serious proposals to split up the Ninth Circuit have recurred in every decade since the 1930s. One of the most famous was the 1973 Hruska Commission, chaired by Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska, which recommended that the circuit be divided. The Fifth Circuit, which originally included most of the southern states, experienced high population growth and cried out for similar reform at around the same time. Congress divided the circuit in two in 1980. Today, the Fifth Circuit and its erstwhile half, the Eleventh Circuit, together have only one more judge than the Ninth Circuit.

Strong Democratic opposition to splitting the Ninth Circuit is of a piece with the ongoing filibustering of conservative judicial nominees. Why allow a Republican president and Senate to pack an entirely new circuit with "right-wing" judges, the reasoning goes. The bigger the Ninth Circuit, the greater the reach of liberalism.

A bloated Ninth Circuit carries unpleasant ideological consequences for the nation, particularly those Americans who live within its jurisdiction. Over the last year, the Ninth Circuit has been on a tear, taking full advantage of Democratic protection in Congress. In addition to declaring the Pledge of Allegiance an unlawful infringement of the Establishment Clause (because of the phrase "under God"), another Ninth Circuit panel handed down an equally questionable ruling in Brown v. California Department of Transportation. The court ruled that the California Department of Transportation could not allow American flags to be placed on state highway overpasses without permits unless the agency did the same for antiwar signs. Throughout the western U.S., Old Glory arguably enjoys no greater right to display on public property these days than "No Blood for Oil" placards.

The Ninth Circuit has been busy rewriting the Bill of Rights as well. A three-judge panel this year declared that the Second Amendment does not include an individual right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the express language of the amendment. In American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco, an organization opposed to homosexuality sued the city and county of San Francisco after it encountered persecution from those governmental entities over its pro-family advertising campaign. The two governmental entities sent a letter to the group denouncing the campaign and linking its message to the murder of Matthew Shepard, passed two resolutions condemning the campaign, and discouraged TV stations from carrying the group's advertisements. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that these acts of governmental harassment did not violate the First Amendment. In dissent, one judge wryly questioned what would be the reaction if a city council "adopted a resolution condemning Islam because its teaching embraced the concept of a holy war and [was] . . . 'directly correlated' with the bombing of the World Trade Center."

Just two weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit overturned the sentences of three quarters of the inmates on Arizona's death row as well as of inmates in Idaho and Montana. In doing so, the court spurned rulings by the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, which had applied a recent Supreme Court decision so as not to overturn capital verdicts in their states. One dissenting judge noted that the Ninth Circuit's ruling was "not compatible with Supreme Court precedent, our prior rulings, or the law of our sister circuits."

Obviously, the best response to such activism is to appoint federal appellate judges who will not behave as philosopher-kings. But even if Senate Democrats continue to stonewall President Bush's judicial nominees, they will have a harder time justifying a filibuster of a new, and long-overdue, judicial circuit in the West. Such a division can only help the broader cause of reining in judges who have increasingly little regard for democracy.

Andrew Peyton Thomas, an attorney and author in Phoenix, was the Republican nominee for attorney general of Arizona last year.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Alaska; US: Arizona; US: California; US: Hawaii; US: Idaho; US: Montana; US: Nevada; US: Oregon; US: Utah; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: california; ninthcircuit; recall
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last
This was already done to create the 11th.
1 posted on 09/16/2003 8:50:42 AM PDT by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Credo
good article. too bad this guy didn't win in Arizona.
2 posted on 09/16/2003 8:54:25 AM PDT by votelife (Free Bill Pryor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Credo
What if the Ninth gave a decision and no one gave a big rat's behind? It's coming to that, and quickly, too.
3 posted on 09/16/2003 9:04:38 AM PDT by Noumenon (Those who seek the destruction of a free society are unfit to live in that same society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Voters in Humboldt have sent in 25% of the absentee ballots... North Coast surprised, dismayed at possible delay James Tressler The Times-Standard

Tuesday, September 16, 2003 -

EUREKA -- Monday's federal appeals court decision possibly delaying the Oct. 7 recall election was a bombshell, taking area elections officials and political party leaders by surprise.

So far, few seem thrilled with the ruling, either. When Humboldt County Elections Manager Lindsey McWilliams got word of the decision Monday morning, he and his staff were in the midst of processing some 3,000 absentee ballots that had already been returned from the 12,000 that were mailed out just last week. McWilliams said he's rarely seen such a rapid turnaround time for the ballots, a sign that many people are interested in the race. He estimated thus far the county has spent about $100,000 preparing for the recall election.

"The horse isn't just out of the barn, it's halfway around the track," McWilliams said, reacting to the U.S. 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals decision Monday to block the recall election.

Postponing the race, a ruling that is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as early as today, was based on the fact that six counties in the state still use outdated punch-card ballots, the same type that were used in Florida during the controversial 2000 presidential election.

Humboldt County has for some time stopped using those machines, having converted several years ago to optical-scan ballots. Still, a visibly unhappy McWilliams remarked that while some counties in California are still using the punch-card ballots, the state didn't experience the kinds of problems with the machines that were seen in Florida. He also noted that the punch-card ballots were used in last year's California gubernatorial election.

McWilliams declined to speculate on the outcome of any eventual Supreme Court decision, but said that he and his staff will in the meantime continue moving full-steam ahead. All of the absentee ballots that continue to arrive daily can't be counted until seven days before the election, and so for now not much on that end is affected by the court's decision.

Monday's ruling also was greeted with surprise and not a little disappointment by leading Democrats and Republicans alike.

Brian Mau, chairman of the Humboldt County Democratic Party, said delaying the recall would come at a bad time, considering that he believes Democrats' efforts to beat the recall are just now picking up momentum. He cited, for instance, former President Bill Clinton's highly visible endorsements of Gov. Gray Davis over the weekend. Mau added that Democrats oppose the recall in part because they believe it's a costly distraction from the more pressing problems facing California, such as its fiscal woes.

"The cost is still out there -- we've still wasted $60 million of taxpayers' money," Mau said. "We've distracted the state government from solving problems with the economy. Postponing the election will prolong that instability. It's better to get it over with sooner rather than later."

Mau estimated that hundreds of volunteers have already been mobilized locally by Democrats to help campaign against the recall. As far as what happens next, Mau said he'd check in with the state party headquarters for direction.

Similar uncertainty pervaded among area Republicans. Mike Harvey, chairman of the Humboldt County Republican Party, seemed equally stunned by the news, but he also said he's confident the Supreme Court will not uphold Monday's decision.

"This is a potential mess," Harvey said. "But it's not going to be upheld by the Supreme Court. I think (the Supreme Court is) going to deal with this swiftly and we're going to have the election on Oct. 7."

4 posted on 09/16/2003 9:05:20 AM PDT by tubebender (FReeRepublic...How bad have you got it...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Bump and thanks for posting! The 9th Circuit is already a joke, since no other circuit will follow its decisions, and the Supreme Court usually doesn't blink in overturning its silliness. They should keep the 9th in the slice of coastal California, (after all, they've earned the reputation, so they should keep it) but shear off the remainder of the state and the other states for a 12th.
5 posted on 09/16/2003 9:07:41 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (You say you want a revolution. . .well, bring it on already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Credo
The Ninth Circuit was established in 1866, at a time when most of its current constituent states did not even exist.

The argument could be made that the 9th Circuit Court is so old and obsolete that it too, violates the equal protection clause if the 14th. Amendment, as the court claims the punch card voting system does.

In fact, it does. It's rulings have consistently favored the moneyed interests of the urban, LA to Frisco corridor, rather than the general welfare of the populace of the Western United States.

6 posted on 09/16/2003 9:11:24 AM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative
My "plan" to realign the circuits. Each gets about 50 electoral votes. We move the New York circuit to Dallas to better reflect the demographic shift of the country. Each court gets approximately the same number of judges. All presently serving judges, of course, get to keep their jobs. (Note the enlargement of the Boston circuit to full-circuit size by adding Vermont and New Jersey [which, I realize, is disjoined from the rest of the circuit].)

FIRST CIRCUIT—BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS (49)
Maine (4)
New Hampshire (4)
Vermont (3)
Massachusetts (12)
Rhode Island (4)
Connecticut (7)
New Jersey (15)
Atlantic Ocean
Indian Ocean
Southern Ocean

THIRD CIRCUIT—PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA (52)
Pennsylvania (21)
New York (31)

FOURTH CIRCUIT—RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (49)
Virginia (13)
North Carolina (15)
Maryland (10)
South Carolina (8)
Delaware (3)

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT—ATLANTA, GEORGIA (42)
Georgia (15)
Florida (27)

FIFTH CIRCUIT—NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (41+~5)
Louisiana (9)
Arkansas (6)
Mississippi (6)
Alabama (9)
Tennessee (11)
Puerto Rico
Gulf of Mexico
Virgin Islands

SIXTH CIRCUIT—CINCINNATI, OHIO (50)
Ohio (20)
Michigan (17)
Kentucky (8)
West Virginia (5)

SEVENTH CIRCUIT—CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (52)
Illinois (21)
Wisconsin (10)
Minnesota (10)
Indiana (11)
Great Lakes
Arctic Ocean

EIGHTH CIRCUIT—SAINT LOUIS, MISSOURI (48)
Missouri (11)
Iowa (7)
Oklahoma (7)
Kansas (6)
Nebraska (5)
South Dakota (3)
North Dakota (3)
Wyoming (3)
Montana (3)

SECOND CIRCUIT—DALLAS, TEXAS (49)—
Relocated from NEW YORK, NEW YORK
Texas (34)
Arizona (10)
New Mexico (5)

TENTH CIRCUIT—DENVER, COLORADO (48)
Colorado (9)
Washington (11)
Oregon (7)
Idaho (4)
Alaska (3)
Hawaii (4)
Nevada (5)
Utah (5)

NINTH CIRCUIT—SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA (55)
California (55)
Pacific Ocean
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
7 posted on 09/16/2003 9:24:46 AM PDT by dufekin (Eliminate genocidical terrorist miltiary dictator Kim Jong Il now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Credo; Dog Gone
My court is pretty well agreed that this is the end of the 9th Circuit. Even my liberal Democratic wife, who graduated from Boalt (UC Berkeley's law school) agrees. We also agree that the split will take the form of putting all the bad eggs in one basket and dropping the basket, i.e., put the most reversed judges in the California part of the split and then not appoint new ones for a long time. The latter idea is to let retirement attrition reduce the number of appellate judges in the new California circuit, so the remainder's caseload soars. That will reduce their ability to do further damage, including by having their caseload be disproportionately criminal appeals.

IMO no new judges for the California circuit should be appointed until all or almost all of the original idiots have gone on "senior" status - no regularly assigned cases - at which time none of the new appointees should be federal district judges, and instead consist only of state court judges (mostly California state appellate courts) or lawyers with no judicial experience. The latter idea is to entirely destroy the old 9th Circuit's dysfunctional institutional culture. Appointing new California circuit court judges from the district court bench would tend to perpetuate the 9th's institutional culture, and so the federal district bench here should not have any upward mobility for at least 20 years.

8 posted on 09/16/2003 9:35:15 AM PDT by Thud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thud; Congressman Billybob
Bumb for Billybob's input.
9 posted on 09/16/2003 10:01:06 AM PDT by Credo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

10 posted on 09/16/2003 10:02:09 AM PDT by DoctorZIn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Credo
Rogue Court, but what is to be done???
11 posted on 09/16/2003 10:05:21 AM PDT by Porterville (I spell stuff wrong sometimes, get over yourself, you're not that great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dufekin
Your approach, and others that draw new Circuits from scratch, is preferable to ones that merely "split the Ninth." If nothing else, they are POLITICALLY preferable, for they are somewhat insulated from the criticism that "you're just out to get the Ninth! it's all politics!"

Although there'd also be nothing wrong with "splitting the Ninth." The usual approach would put CA and the island territories into a Twelfth Circuit, not unlike the "new 9th" proposed in your list, and leave the other states in the "Old 9th."

But, again, a total redrawing is better. Why should Arizona be in there with Alaska, when it could be with New Mexico and Texas?
12 posted on 09/16/2003 10:06:29 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Credo
This was discussed some time ago. It is a very good idea. Split the 9th in two and load them both with sensible judges.
13 posted on 09/16/2003 10:29:09 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dufekin
That's not a bad plan, except I would put Michigan in the seventh circuit and Indiana in the sixth circuit. Michigan little in common with Kentucky and West Virginia. Indiana has more.
14 posted on 09/16/2003 10:54:20 AM PDT by TedsGarage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TedsGarage
To add, if the 7th Circuit is going to oversee the Great Lakes, Michigan should definitely be a part.
15 posted on 09/16/2003 10:55:54 AM PDT by TedsGarage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Credo
I don't get it. It's O.K. for the Dems to hold up Bush's nominee's because they are "conservatives", but it's fine when Dem Presidents nominate radical extreme left wing ideologues to this court???
16 posted on 09/16/2003 10:57:12 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dufekin
Looks good, except you should put Montana in the 10th next to Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado. St. Louis is a long distance to travel for circuit court arguments if you're from Montana, IMO.
17 posted on 09/16/2003 11:11:08 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (You say you want a revolution. . .well, bring it on already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Thud
I like that idea. I'm glad your wife thinks it's inevitable, too.
18 posted on 09/16/2003 12:22:52 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Why should Arizona be in there with Alaska, when it could be with New Mexico and Texas?

Because you'd be creating a legal mess by putting lots of states in different circuits. For example, suddenly making Arizona subject to all Fifth Circuit precedents is a bad idea. It's much more orderly to have all the states in a new circuit subject to the same old precedents, even if the precedents are Ninth Circus precedents.

By the way, Lisa Murkowski's maiden speech in the Senate was a call for breaking up the Ninth Circuit. She's the new Republican senator from Alaska.

19 posted on 09/17/2003 5:07:42 AM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I disagree that it'd be a legal mess. It would be common knowledge in Arizona that, prior to X date, it was in the 9th Circuit. Look, this isn't really even a debatable point, in my view: the fact that a state's lawyers have to learn, on their first day of practice, that there is this minor issue with the Circuit membership of their state, isn't a "legal mess."
20 posted on 09/17/2003 7:44:08 AM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson