http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139436,00.html
Activist judges? WTF? Because they don’t agree with you they’re activists?
This can’t be good.
From the linked article:
Bolding mine, for emphasis.
World Eater: why do you think that the 9th is the most reversed court in the nation?
I’m more concerned about the results of the “tinkering”
Besides somebody has to be the most overturned in the nation. 
I love the ninth, and even I will admit it is an outlier on many issues. More importantly, it is just simply too big to serve the purpose of a circuit court. Haven’t they been talking for years about a split? As far as I can see, that will not lead to any major concerns, as the square mile size of a circuit doesn’t determine its national influence, and any California based circuit will still have major oomph.
There are plenty more things to get worried about with federal courts than a split of the ninth.
Fair 'nuf.
Actually, they’re not breaking up the 9th circuit because of any of their decisions. They’re breaking up the 9th because it is by far, the largest circuit in the entire country-look at a map of the circuits sometime and you’ll see just how gargantuan it is.
No matter what the talking ham sandwich in the article said, it’s not about activism. Focusing on “activism”, is just another way of getting the right-wing media devourers to forget that they’re impotent and get a little morning wood.
Sam
I have a serious question for you.
As you might guess, this isn’t the first time “activist judges” have been mentioned here on the Boards. Nor is it the first time that someone has condemned the label “activist judges” by suggesting it’s simply used to describes judges or rulings with which the speaker disagrees.
I have been trying to correct that misapprension, pointing out to people that “activist” has a specific meaning, referring to the interpretive style of the judge. I’ve explained in detail that it’s possible to disagree with a judge without calling him an activist, and to agree with a result but disaffirm the activist methos used to arrive at that result.
My question to you amounts to a survey, I guess, of how effective I’ve been.
Up until this post, had you ever read anything like that, about what “activist” means, from me?
No. I wouldn’t mind a quick explanation to help dispell a little of my ignorance.
I have and it was very helpful. Thanks.
I’ve never understood this sort of point. Logic dictates that one circuit court or another will always be the most reversed. After the 9th is broken up, it may be a different court, but one of them will still be the most-reversed. What do you do then?
Sure!
In this thread, there’s a discussion about methods and results that’s pretty easy to follow, I think.
Most reversed is short hand. What they really mean is consistently most reversed. There is no requirement that one court should year in year out be roe reversed than others.
Of course, given the principles underlying the circuit system and the federal state split is that a series of different courts act as laboratories for different legal approaches, it is a good thing that something like the ninth exists. But then again, the Federalist Society’s view of different approaches is a full spectrum from conservative to ultra-conservative.
Thanks, I’ll check it out and report back here.
Sounds a little like circuit-court gerrymandering to me. Taking the liberal and activist 9th and giving a big share of its power to a 12th covering Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada, traditionally conservative states. (The 13th seems a little more liberal.) I don’t understand the circuit court system very well, so this may not really be something that’ll make a big difference. I don’t know. But that was my first reaction.
Of course, as Arizona and Nevada gradually scoot leftward, things will probably change. Then again, my view of at least Arizona is a little skewed by the fact that I live in what seems to be its most Democratic county.
A question about how Circiut Court judges are appointed: Is there any local (ie, state) control over which judges are appointed, or is it strictly a federal matter? I ask this in relation to an implied assumption by some of the posters here that a “lberal” state or set of states should have a “liberal” leaning Circuit Court.
I dunno. Why do you think that the 9th Circuit is the most affirmed court in the nation?
Just for kicks, I did a review of the decisions issued by the Supreme Court in the 2003 term (i.e., last year). The 9th Circuit was affirmed 7 times and reversed 19 times, for a 27% affirmance rate. That sounds pretty bad, but it’s right in line with the Court’s overall disposition rate: 22 affirmed, 57 reversed (plus one case that was within the Court’s original jurisdiction, so it wasn’t an appeal at all), for a 28% affirmance rate.
For the curious, here’s the breakdown by court:
1st: No cases
2nd: 0-2
3rd: 1-3
4th: 3-1
5th: 1-5
6th: 2-6
7th: 2-2
8th: 1-2
9th: 7-19
10th 0-3
11th: 0-4
D.C.: 1-3
Fed.: 0-1
State courts: 4-6
You can check my counting here. FWIW, I went strictly by the disposition, e.g., affirmed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, etc. If the court determined it was without jurisdiction (as happened in one appeal from a state court), I counted that as an affirmance. In the school prayer case, where the court decided that the plaintiff had no standing to sue, I counted that as a reversal. I also counted the campaign finance reform case as an affirmance, making a judgment call that the Supreme Court affirmed the majority of what the D.C. Circuit had decided, even though it also reversed on some matters.
It’s solely a federal matter, though who gets nominated is frequently influenced by the recommendations and lobbying of local folks, including the senators for the state or states in question.
I thought the objection raised about the 9th was that it was so often reversed unanimously, not that it was simply so often reversed.
Given the recent history of the Republican Party with its willingness to accomplish by subterfuge what it can’t manage openly and fairly, and its obvious desire to stack the court with partisans, it would be truly amazing if this change were not used as a way to achieve its desires. Alarm is warranted under the circumstances.
If you want to count each justice’s vote during the 2003 term to see how many voted for and against each circuit, you’re welcome to do so. I have neither the time nor the inclination, given that the affirm/reverse ratio is so dead-on with the overall numbers.