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:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-...

Views: 700

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Something has got to be done and it can't wait

" Under Flake’s bill, the new circuit would cover Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska, leaving the 9th with three Pacific states as well as the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.

A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.

Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.

“The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, don’t want to give up any of their jurisdiction,” Flake said.   

Congress created the court in 1891. At the time, the area was sparsely inhabited – only four percent of the U.S. population lived in the area compared to today’s 20 percent.

In 1998, Congress appointed a commission to reexamine the federal appeals courts’ structure. The commission ultimately recommended against splitting the 9th Circuit.

But carving up the large circuit isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In 1929, Congress split the 8th Circuit to accommodate a population boom and increased caseloads.

Democratic strategist Joe Lestingi pushed back on accusations the court leans left.

“We don’t complain about courts being too conservative,” he told Fox News. “The truth is… the liberal side of that court provides the conflict we need to settle our most basic disagreements.”

He added that the 9th Circuit’s track record of rulings being overturned -- sometimes unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court -- is all part of the judicial process.

“If the Supreme Court wasn’t going to overturn lower courts' decisions, then we don’t need a Supreme Court anymore,” Lestingi argued. "   

Even with the split the 12th would be too big also

Hawaii, California, Guam (that will tip-over), Northern Mariana Islands, western Or., western Wash. stay in the 9th 

Alaska needs it own Court,

AZ., NV. eastern OR., eastern Wash. have their own Court,

ID MT, have their own Court. 

Then make plans on Ca having CA with just by it's self.

I understand the need to dilute the influence of the nutty ninth, however I don't understand keeping the activist judges on the bench: Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
each judge declares this oath before assuming office. Clearly, many are in violation of the oath they took by issuing decisions based on their political leanings and not on law. GET RID OF THEM!

It is beyond me, far, far beyond me, why anyone would believe that impeachment is not necessary when government officials conduct themselves in violation of the Constitution, repeatedly, as if there is nobody and no means to prevent it.

Obama should have been impeached. So should the 9th circuit court. The democrats are more than willing to impeach President Trump on any trumped up charge (no pun intended) they can concoct simply because he was elected. But not the republicans. Not them. Not these little babies, these little sissies, all pretending that they are "doing the people's business" when they are actually giving us the business.

The House should impeach and make a show of it. Market it like a TV Reality Show. The ratings would go through the roof.

Bring up the history of the court and it's asinine anti-constitution anti-American anti-rule of law, common sense and decency lacking rulings. Show the public through entertaining educational production what this court truly is, what it's rulings are truly about, and why the justices are a farce to even be called Justices.

Write an entire script for this production, market it, sell it to the public with irrefutable facts.

Then, when it goes to the Senate, the odds of conviction will have increased dramatically. Some Democrats will be afraid to contest it since it would hurt them personally to do so.

Clinton wasn't supposed to lose the election either. She damned sure did. But she didn't lose because Donald Trump was afraid to run, now did she.

IMPEACH! It is the right step to take. America will never be great if all the effort is left up to Donald Trump.

Image result for applause presenter media animation

I never said impeachment was unnecessary. I am saying that impeachment is not going to remove anyone from office under the current constraints. If there were any chance that at least 20 on the left would cross the aisle to vote for conviction, I would say go for it, but the chances are low, because with the exception of a few Dems who are vulnerable in elections, most Dem senators come from blue states, and they are going to vote for their own re-election. Their base consists of indoctrinated  mindless zombies who would eat garbage if the left said it was candy, and claim it tasted great. The Senate  couldn't convict Bill Clinton when there was no doubt he lied.  And do you really think that we could count on every senator wearing a GOP pin to vote in favor of conviction, keeping in mind that a number of them are Trump haters who would vote against the country to spite Trump? This means that more Dems would have to support conviction to compensate for the likes of McCain, Sasse, Graham, Murkowski, Collins, etc.

Another point:  Although presidents in the past nominated the incumbent judges, in fact they were usually tit-for-tat recommendations by left wing senators, like Patty Murray in WA, even though Robart's nomination was nominally from  Bush II. If Robart were successfully  impeached and convicted, such a show trial would take a lot of the time of the senators who can't even get the most urgent jobs done, like repealing and replacing Obamacare, tax cuts,and other matters that are urgently needed to allow the people to function. Then there would have to be trials for each of the other judges in the 9th Circuit.  There are many things tha a president cannot do, and tha Congress must do.

You can probably find polls to support you, but it depends on how the question is asked. If you ask if Robart should be impeached conservatives will likely vote yes. But if you ask which about their priorities, i.e., which should come first impeach Robart, tax cuts, Obamnacare repeal and replace,. reduce the regulatory burden, etc., I suspect the responses will be very different.

Image result for thumbs up media animation

I see so very many posts referring to the various oaths-of-office which oath(s) include allegiance to the U.S.A. and solemn promises along with vows to God almighty (NOT "allah") to protect and defend our constitution but the posters seem to be oblivious to the simple fact that an oath means absolutely zero to a politician.

What is the answer to this?  Summary execution seems to be a bit extreme but a few such, of the most egregious oathbreakers, done in public would seem to be a deterrent and possible learning opportunity for the remainder of them - especially the politicos at the Federal level.

Fear has always been a great motivator. It is caused by undesirable consequence.

If a law has no penalty, it is not a law. If the penalty is not enforced, the law is worthless.

So is a promise. An oath not kept is worthless.

"...an oath means absolutely zero to a politician."

How true!  'somebody says I need to say these words.  I don'r know what they mean, if anything, but here goes... "I Solemnly swear to....."  Now lets get on with the Party's business...'  'What?  What I just did 'violates my oath'?  What the hell is that?  The Party likes it, and that's all that counts.'

They need to quit talking about it and DO it!  It's been too long trying to cover 10 LARGE states, some of which have a hefty population.  It was enough when the West was sparsely populated, but it isn't so today!  We need TWO MORE, and maybe THREE.   

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

Breaking — West Virginia Lawmakers Invite Persecuted Pro-Second Amendment Counties In Virginia To Join Their State

West Virginia lawmakers introduced legislation to invite persecuted pro Second Amendment Counties to join their state.

The West Virginia Senate adopted a resolution to remind Virginia residents from Frederick County that they have a standing invite — from 1862 — to become part of West Virginia.

West Virginia freedom fighters broke away from Virginia Democrat slave owners during the Civil War.

This week West Virginia has once again invited persecuted Virginia pro 2-A counties to come join their state.

Sounds like a winning plan!

Resolution 8 reads as follows:

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 8

(By Delegates Howell, Summers, Shott, Householder, C. Martin, Hott, Graves, Cadle, Barnhart, J. Jeffries, Maynard, Phillips, Foster, Hamrick, Steele, D. Jeffries, Wilson, Waxman, Bartlett, Paynter, Linville, Sypolt, Bibby, Hill, Ellington, Higginbotham, J. Kelly, Mandt, Pack, Dean and P. Martin)

[Introduced January 14, 2020]

Providing for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia

Whereas, The Legislature of West Virginia finds that in 1863, due to longstanding perceived attitudes of neglect for the interests of the citizens of Western Virginia, and a studied failure to address the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond, the Commonwealth of Virginia was irretrievably divided, and the new State of West Virginia was formed; and

Whereas, Such division occurred as the Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of taxation by which they bore a disproportionate share of the tax burden; and

Whereas, That this perception was further compounded by the effects of a scheme of representation by which Trans-Allegheny Virginia was not allowed to have its proper and equitable share of representation in the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, That this arrangement arguably resulted in the tax dollars of Trans-Allegheny Virginia being used to enrich the Tidewater through internal improvements which did not benefit the people of Western Virginia, while the people of the Trans-Allegheny had little to no say in how their tax dollars were allocated; and

Whereas, Though this course led to an irreconcilable division, and the subsequent formation of West Virginia, yet, the longstanding peaceful cooperation between this State and the Commonwealth of Virginia is a sign that such separation, undertaken even under the most challenging and onerous of circumstances, can, with the passage of time, yield lasting results which are beneficial to both sides; and

Whereas, In the intervening years, the same neglect for the interests of many of the remaining counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia has allegedly been evidenced by the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, Particularly, many citizens of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont contend that an inequitable measure of taxation exists by which they bear a disproportionate share of the present tax burden of the Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont also believe that, currently, a scheme of representation exists by which the citizens of Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont do not have a proper share of representation in the government at Richmond; and, consequently

Whereas, The people of the Southside, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwestern Virginia, and the Piedmont believe that their tax dollars are used to enrich the Tidewater and Northern Virginia through internal improvements which do not benefit the people of these other parts of Virginia, while the people of these other parts of Virginia have little to no say in how their tax dollars are allocated; and

Whereas, In recent days, these tensions have been compounded by a perception of contempt on the part of the government at Richmond for the differences in certain fundamental political and societal principles which prevail between the varied counties and cities of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, In the latest, and most evident, in this string of grievances, the government at Richmond now seeks to place intolerable restraints upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth; and

Whereas, The Legislative body of West Virginia believes that this latest action defies the wise counsel which has come down to us in the august words of our common Virginia Founders: as the government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that tribune of liberty, Patrick Henry-who stated to the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788 that “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of a Signer of the Declaration and premier advocate of American independence, Richard Henry Lee-who stated in The Federal Farmer that “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of that zealous guardian of our inherent rights, George Mason-who stated that “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them”; and

Whereas, The government at Richmond now repudiates the counsel of the declaimer of our independence and theoretician of our freedoms, Thomas Jefferson-who stated in his first draft of the Virginia Constitution, that “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms”; and

Whereas, The Boards of Supervisors of many Virginia counties and the Councils of many Virginia cities have recognized this dangerous departure from the doctrine of the Founders on the part of the government at Richmond; and

Whereas, These Boards of Supervisors and Councils have passed resolutions refusing to countenance what they affirm are unwarranted and unconstitutional measures by that government to infringe the firearm rights of Virginians; and

Whereas, The actions of the government at Richmond undertaken since the recent general election have, regrettably, resulted in unproductive contention and escalating a lamentable state of civic tension; and

Whereas, That, as has been proven in numerous instances, such as have been observed internationally in more recent times with the peaceful dissolutions of Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union, and the creation of South Sudan, or, earlier in Virginia’s own history, with the formation of Kentucky, the peaceful partition of neighboring peoples can occur, and, is often very beneficial to both sides in reducing tensions and improving the tenor of discourse over ongoing political and societal differences; and

Whereas, Article VI, Section 11 of The Constitution of the State of West Virginia explicitly permits additional territory to be admitted into, and become part of this state, with the consent of the Legislature and of a majority of the qualified voters of the state; and

Whereas, In a spirit of conciliation, the Legislature of West Virginia hereby extends an invitation to our fellow Virginians who wish to do so, to join us in our noble experiment of 156 years of separation from the government at Richmond; and, we extend an invitation to any constituent county or city of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the body politic of the State of West Virginia, under the conditions set forth in our state Constitution, specifically, with the consent of a majority of the voters of such county or city voting upon such proposition; and we hereby covenant that their many grievances shall be addressed, and, we further covenant with them that their firearms rights shall be protected to the fullest extent possible under our Federal and State Constitutions; and

Whereas, Providing that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall give its assent to any county or independent city presently part of the Commonwealth of Virginia having the opportunity and ability to do so, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia.

Trump Holds Rally in Milwaukee, WI 1-14-20

© 2020   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service