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.
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.
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.
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.
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.