Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’ Court

Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom. 

Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling. 

“It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. It’s just too big,” Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. “We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just don’t have it.”

Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.

“It’s far too long,” he added. 

Conservatives have mocked the 9th Circuit for years, often calling it the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because so many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

read more:

Views: 698

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There is a good article at on "firing" federally appointed judges. In fact they cannot be "fired", they must be impeached, and the procedures are the same as for impeaching AND CONVICTING a President, and that takes 67 votes in the Senate.  Unfortunately it is not as easy as just saying, "You're fired", and since we only have 52 votes in the Senate now, where would the other 15 votes come from to convict?


I used the term "fired" to mean dismissal, to mean get rid of, to mean terminate, yes, to mean impeachment.

Never, ever, worry about conviction. Do what you are mandated to do by the law, by the Constitution. Impeach these blights on America. The House initiates Impeachment and should do so. They represent the people of the United States, real Americans, the entire herd of the populace. By not acting they are derelict in their duty.

A Judge, a real one, would take but 5 minutes to see that President Trump is acting Constitutionally and rationally with his Executive Action to temporarily suspend entry from individuals in countries known to be  nesting terrorists and giving them free license to the soil of the United States. A third grader has more sense.

Even beyond this Executive Action and speaking to immigration itself, why should another form of government (the Muslim "religion") be suffered to swarm our cities and, by herding together, establish their language and manners to the exclusion of our own? Why must we be musliminised, rather than us Americanising them?

The same questions apply to Hispanics. Why?

This Nation was not founded to allow those who intend to destroy it free access in order to do it.

Freedom and liberty are always conditional. ALWAYS. And if one doesn't care to meet the conditions then the door is slammed shut. ALWAYS.

We are a Nation of laws. It is high time we acted like it, rather than dopes.

You are calling for impeachment but that is only part of the process and impeachment alone cannot get anyone fired, terminated or otherwise kicked out of office.

"They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases."....Hopefully they did not say anything like "too liberal".  THAT, my friends,is a sure way to make their excellent idea into nothing but the business-as-usual shadowplay while the liberal juggernaut continues to run rampant over our country.

Our land is in need of real reform, not political grandstanding by career politicians.  

Mr. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" and in that project, he will find that he is up to his ears in alligators but I certainly want him to be successful.

  This is the BEST IDEA YET !!!!!!

If this happens it will open a lot of federal land open to mining and drilling in those western states.Those judges in the 9th are really liberal thinking and Trump will get to appoint more judges I am for this.I am sure McCain has a financial reason he is doing it,even so I'll take what I can get Ted Cruz said it was a good move to make.

That court should have been abolished years ago, WAY to liberal

Yes. I am calling for impeachment.

Yes. It is only a first step in getting phony undesirables out of office.

But if the first step is never taken, then how on earth can you get anywhere?

That is my point.  Take that damned first step! To hell with conviction. Impeach, dammit. Impeach! This single step by the House will demonstrate that this legislating from the bench is, and always will be, unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

To not do it is criminal. CRIMINAL!  What the hell do we have a House for if not to represent us. What good is it if it just sits there, has meetings, blathers and blubbers about everything, gives interviews to the media, has recess, spends money like fools, and accomplishes nothing. NOTHING! Not one representative, Not one, has the backbone to stand up and say this crap will end. NOW!  Mr. Speaker. Do your friggin job, you grinning sonofabitch, and bring impeachment to the floor.

Since I have calmed down let me say this. One of the errors of the founders, in my opinion, is that in drafting the Constitution they let the Judiciary Branch the wide open door to become a law unto themselves. The supreme court answers to nobody, and they are reluctant at best to reign in a lower court. They would rather kiss butt, legally, than confront anyone.

The weakness of the law is the fact that those charged with providing lawful enforcement of it are political assholes.

You said that you wanted to get them fired, terminated, but impeachment alone doesn't do that. If the votes are not there to convict them, they will have been have been impeached, but not removed from office, not fired, not terminated.  Their decisions afterwards will likely even be worse just to spite those who tried to impeach them. Bill Clinton was impeached, but he was not fired,not terminated, because there weren't enough votes to convict and evict him. So what did impeachment prove? Any one who has read the Constitution knows  that impeachment is relatively a simple procedure, but it is only half the process, and it is merely a charge of misconduct. and if you don't get the other half, i.e., conviction, it's like a slap with a dry paper napkin in front of a big audience...embarrassing, but no pain at all. And if a conviction does not occur, isn't that the same as saying that the impeachment should not have been brought  because no conviction is the equivalent of being proven innocent?

So, why did you calm down? I thought you were doing just fine!

Time to further emptying the swamp.  

It is time to further empty the swamp.  They must take their lead from Nutty Nancy.  




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service