Break up the 9th Circuit?
Once again, GOPers are hating the 9th Circuit and hoping to break it up into two or three circuits. From the NY Times (via Seattle Times)
This week, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., plans to introduce a bill to split the circuit into three parts. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, has introduced legislation this year that would create at least one, if not two, new appellate courts for the area. ...Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has fiercely opposed efforts to split the circuit, responded to questions by saying the real issue is the number of judges handling cases. "If there is a way to reduce the caseload of the 9th Circuit's judges in a fair and honest manner," she said in a statement, "I am open to considerations."
So, that's the question, Western Democrats: with California cases dominating the 9th's docket, does the inland West deserve its own circuit? Or is this just a backdoor way for the Bush Administration to pack the court with righties?
Kari Chisholm | June 20, 2005 | Comment on This Post (2 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
It's a pack the court scheme, and one that comes up every couple of years. Though the 9th is the most liberal, and (perhaps consequently) the most overturned circuit in the US, there are still some common interests that western states in the circuit share (not the least of which involve our treasured environment) and those alone are good reasons to keep it intact.
Posted by: Anne | Jun 21, 2005 8:32:36 AM
I think that breaking up the 9th Curcuit would not be a bad thing. I think that to discuss it now, and plan for a breakup when a democrat is in office would be good. The 9th could be seperated. California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands would stay in the 9th, and Arizona, Montana, Idaho, and Nevada would be merged into the 10th. Kansas and Oklahoma, in the 10th now, could be given to the 8th or the 5th. This would mean a new 10th would include Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Montana, Arizona, Idaho and Nevada.
I think this would be best for the west in the long run. This setup would be much more balanced regionally and culturally I think. Cases split between the current 9th and 10th would be better handled in the new 10th, cases such as land, water rights, tribal issues, mining, public lands, and the such. The 9th handles those sorts of cases now, but I think because of their overload because of California, this would work better.
Posted by: Daniel C. Cardenas Jr. | Jun 21, 2005 11:58:05 AM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
