Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

9th Circuit's Rulings Frequently Overturned (Repost of 9th Circuit Court Article) (Rogue Court?)
The Washington Times ^ | 06/28/2002 | Joyce Howard Price (1st posted by kattracks 06/27/02)

Posted on 09/15/2003 5:39:03 PM PDT by DoughtyOne

The federal appeals court in San Francisco that found the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday is known as an activist court whose decisions regularly are overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, legal analysts said yesterday.

"The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' liberal record ... and its reputation as the most overturned court in the country ... have almost grown to the status of an urban myth," said Steven Fitschen, president of the National Legal Foundation.

Mr. Fitschen noted that in 1996-97, the Supreme Court issued opinions in nearly 90 cases. "It reversed 27 of the 28 rulings it got from the 9th Circuit, and 17 times, the reversals were unanimous," he said.

Thomas L. Jipping, senior fellow in legal studies for Concerned Women of America, said the court's Pledge decision was more evidence that the 9th District judges "believe they can make law and that they can hijack the culture and run the country," rather than follow the Constitution.

In 1997, Mr. Jipping led efforts against judicial activism. In congressional hearings, he identified as an abuser of judicial power Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that deemed the Pledge's phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

By that time, the Weekly Standard had described Judge Reinhardt, appointed by President Carter, as the "country's most audacious liberal judge" and "one of the most overturned judges in history."

The "noteworthy" rulings in Judge Reinhardt's resume include many that have been reversed by the Supreme Court. In one such opinion, the judge wrote that a Mexican doctor who helped kill a Drug Enforcement Administration agent should not have been forcibly brought to this country for trial over Mexico's objections.

Judge Reinhardt also ruled that a provision in the Arizona Constitution mandating English as the official language of government was "overbroad in violation of the First Amendment." The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the ruling.

In 1992, Judge Reinhardt denounced the Supreme Court, former President Ronald Reagan and President Bush for what he called a lack of confidence in the federal courts by blacks. In a commencement address, he called the federal courts a "bastion of white power."

Anthony T. Caso, general counsel for the Pacific Legal Foundation, said the 9th Circuit's rate of reversal is "definitely ahead of the average" and has not gone unnoticed by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Caso recalled that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has jurisdiction over the 9th Circuit, visited with members of that bench several years ago and focused attention on the fact "that they were overturned on a regular basis."

To reduce that problem, Mr. Caso said, Justice O'Connor recommended that the 9th Circuit opt for having the full 11-member bench decide cases more often, rather than relying on three-judge panels like the one that ruled this week in the Pledge case.

Yesterday, one of the federal appeals court judges put the Pledge ruling on hold indefinitely. The 9th Circuit includes California, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.

The Supreme Court yesterday was unable to provide figures on 9th Circuit reversals, saying it did not classify such data according to circuits.

But the San Francisco Chronicle said there were years in the 1980s and 1990s when the circuit was overturned more than 80 percent of the time.

The Los Angeles Times said the circuit has been reversed in 12 of 16 cases this year. (During year 2002)

Copyright © 2002 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 9thcircuit; 9thcircuitcourt; background; repost; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
I believe this warrants a repost now that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is back in the news on a high level case.
1 posted on 09/15/2003 5:39:05 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I believe you're correct.
2 posted on 09/15/2003 5:40:36 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Timeline of this decision:

D+00:00:00:00 9th Circuit stops election
D+00:24:00:00 Appeal filed with SCOTUS
D+00:72:00:00 SCOTUS stops ROTFLTAO long enough to b!tch-slap 9th Circuit
3 posted on 09/15/2003 5:42:31 PM PDT by Poohbah ("[Expletive deleted] 'em if they can't take a joke!" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
The court ruled that punch card ballots are a violation of FEDERAL law because they are too inaccurate. Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed.
4 posted on 09/15/2003 5:46:11 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Poohbah
My take too, but it will be interesting to see how the democrat Attorney General for California words his appeal. Will he mount a sound legal challenge?
6 posted on 09/15/2003 5:46:12 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: DoughtyOne
Wait a second- they're located in San Fransisco.... They should rule themselves as violating the 1st Amendment, disband, go home, and maybe there'd be a tiny bit of sanity back in the world.
9 posted on 09/15/2003 5:49:04 PM PDT by Vesuvian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I do not want this case going to the SCOTUS. I hope the 9th Circuit en banc overturns this ruling. If they don't, I hope the SCOTUS refuses to hear it.

I'm not from CA, so it's probably easier for me to say that because I don't have to suffer the consequences of the Davis incompetency, but I think states have to learn to cope with their judiciary's decisions. If people get outraged enough, they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.

If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections).

I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.

Donning flame retardant suit...


10 posted on 09/15/2003 5:51:55 PM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It ain't called the "9th CIRCUS" for nothing!
11 posted on 09/15/2003 5:52:11 PM PDT by Henchman (I Hench, therefore I am!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Brilliant
Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed.

Well said. I think we need to leave Bush in there until we get this past Presidential election's kinks totally worked out.../sarcasm off

13 posted on 09/15/2003 5:53:55 PM PDT by PeoplesRep_of_LA ((R)nold called me a "Right wing crazy" because I have a problem with his position on Prop 54)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I think they based their decision on the fact that it will disenfranchise those who cannot read...this could go on for ever.
14 posted on 09/15/2003 5:53:57 PM PDT by Henchman (I Hench, therefore I am!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: randita
There's only one problem. The judges that serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, serve for life. The SCOTUS is the only relief we can get from them. We don't elect them. They are basicly imposed on us.
15 posted on 09/15/2003 5:54:54 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Because punch cards are used in thousands of precincts, nationwide, it will be necessary to cancel the 2004 Presidential election until thsi problem can be fixed.

You still have not figured it out ... have you? I have been in lots of law suits in my time. Every time I asked what the law was, my attorneys told me in no uncertain terms what the law was. But when I asked how the judge would rule on the law not a single attorney would ever tell me how the judge would rule. Not one of my high priced attorneys ever knew how the judge would rule. Judicial decisions have little to do with the law. For if the judges ruled on the law, every attorney could apply the law and tell you how the judge was going to rule. But they can't. There is only one conclusion.

The law is whatever the judges say its is at the time that they say it.

Tomorrow the Judges may say the law says something else!!!!


16 posted on 09/15/2003 5:55:37 PM PDT by Common Tator (I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

17 posted on 09/15/2003 5:56:26 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Pretty disgusting.
18 posted on 09/15/2003 5:56:53 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Life?
19 posted on 09/15/2003 5:58:17 PM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 0311, 68-69)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Afraid so. That's my understanding. They are appointed by the President, reviewed and voted up or down by the Senate.
20 posted on 09/15/2003 6:00:31 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: randita
they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.

Sounds good but could they even if they wanted to?

21 posted on 09/15/2003 6:04:49 PM PDT by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Remember all:

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, is the wife of Justice Stephen Reinhardt.


22 posted on 09/15/2003 6:05:28 PM PDT by Republican Red
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.

Get the smelling salts randita...the tator is about to agree with you.. easy... easy... I told you to sid down.

Yes I too, believe in states rights.

The best thing the Supremes could do is take the case away from the 9th and then declare the federal courts did not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Case and game over....Election proceeds on schedule.

That my dear is a distinct possibility. It is what the Scalia-Thomas group would want to do.

I would bet your conservative heart could support the Supremes doing that....

23 posted on 09/15/2003 6:07:19 PM PDT by Common Tator (I support Billybob. www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I WANT TO FILE A CLASS ACTION complaining that llegal aliiens wiith motor voter 'rights', cancel my republican vote. I am beng denied my voice by democRAT CHEATS!
24 posted on 09/15/2003 6:08:57 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
I have never seen her make a presentation on television that didn't repulse me. She is disgusting.
25 posted on 09/15/2003 6:09:59 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
My take too, but it will be interesting to see how the democrat Attorney General for California words his appeal. Will he mount a sound legal challenge?

Doesn't matter--another defendant WILL mount a sound challenge.

26 posted on 09/15/2003 6:11:40 PM PDT by Poohbah ("[Expletive deleted] 'em if they can't take a joke!" -- Major Vic Deakins, USAF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Don't disfrankincense me!

We use punch card ballots here in San Diego County and no one cares.

27 posted on 09/15/2003 6:14:45 PM PDT by South40 (Vote Mcclintock, elect bustamante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
Only in the age of liberal judicial activism. In the good ole days, the law was the law, and if you did not like it--then tough.
28 posted on 09/15/2003 6:20:10 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: South40
We've used them up here for thirty years plus too. I never had a problem.
29 posted on 09/15/2003 6:28:59 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: randita
If people get outraged enough, they'll recall the judges or the appeal to their legislatures to impeach the judges.

They can't recall the judges and the legislature can't impeach them. These are FEDERAL judges.

If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections).

What does that have to do with overturning a decision a Federal Court has made?

I hated to see the SCOTUS step in in 2000, but that was clearly a national issue. The election of the governor of CA is clearly not.

So if it's not a national issue, then the SCOTUS should reverse this interference by a FEDERAL court.

30 posted on 09/15/2003 6:35:55 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I saw the coverage of this on See BS tonight. They reported, without any comment, the court's conclusion that using punch cards could invalidate 40,000 votes - putting a graphic on the screen showing the number 40,000. If true it would be a good argument, but where did this number come from? They didn't say. Chances are the ACLU just made it up, and the liberal judges simply repeated it in their decision.

They also said the court relied heavily on the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore, wherein using different methods of counting votes, i.e. counting dimpled chads in a couple of counties, machine counts in the rest. What does that have to do with using different kinds of machines to register the vote? They're two completely different things.

31 posted on 09/15/2003 6:43:58 PM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Would that be the SCOTUS vacating an order by the 9th?
32 posted on 09/15/2003 6:51:05 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: randita
>> "If we want power returned to the people, then we can't rely on the judiciary to do the work the people should do (i.e. decide or overturn elections)." <<

That is just the problem. The 9th circuit is preventing the people from doing their work.

The people have called for a recall election ( a totally democratic process of the people covered in the state Constition ). The 9th circus is stopping this from happening (or at least delaying it, but justice delayed is justice lost).
33 posted on 09/15/2003 6:51:07 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
So use guys think that SCOTUS is going to reverse COANUS regarding the recall of GOTSOC? What does POTUS think of all that?
34 posted on 09/15/2003 6:53:29 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Boss, I forgot to bring my tag line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I agree that they are two different things also.
35 posted on 09/15/2003 6:59:00 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: randita
The 9th Circuit is a Federal Court. The people of California can't recall them. The US Congress would have to impeach and convict them.
36 posted on 09/15/2003 7:02:00 PM PDT by adamyoshida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
lol!
37 posted on 09/15/2003 7:08:27 PM PDT by South40 (Vote Mcclintock, elect bustamante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GoOrdnance
>> "That brings up some of the same issues we had in Florida." <<

One of the major problems in Fla was that the different districts were interpreting the questionable ballots differently. Some were counting hanging chads, some not, etc. In addition, the recount was only for some districts, not the whole state.

These were the key issues. The fact that some districts were using punch cards and others were using optical scanners, was not an issue, if I remember correctly.

And very very importantly, the legal challenges in Fla were for an election that happened, with some results that could be challenged. In CA, this is a Pre-emptive strike on what coulda maybe happen in an election that has not happened yet. This would be a scary legal line. If elections (the key voice of the people) could be stopped on the basis of what someone dreamed up could maybe happen, we could lose our ability to even have elections.
38 posted on 09/15/2003 7:09:34 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Looks to me like Boy Billy and Gray have been busy on the phones, as well as campaigning in a black church. Why am I NOT surprised?
39 posted on 09/15/2003 7:10:02 PM PDT by Humidston (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Humidston
Don't you wish you could prove that. I know I do. If those two yahoos were on the phone regarding this, that would be one way to get rid of some federal judges.
40 posted on 09/15/2003 7:12:39 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

To: DoughtyOne

 

 

42 posted on 09/15/2003 7:24:13 PM PDT by Born Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoOrdnance
>> "IMHO, the issue here is that we don't have a uniform election system across the country. Thus, there is no way to ensure equal protection." <<

True, but the country has got along pretty well for a couple hundred years without a uniform system. And if you take the position (and make it the most important issue that there is) that "there is no way to ensure equal protection" (which is probably true) then it opens up EVERY election to attack from the courts. This could result in chaos and anarchy, just what the commie libs would like.
43 posted on 09/15/2003 7:41:29 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Isn't the ruling by the 9th Circuit PANEL OF 3 JUDGES disenfranchising all the voters who signed the petition by delaying the recall vote until MARCH?

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 15.

(a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

(b) A recall election may be conducted within 180 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures in order that the election may be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled election occurring wholly or partially within the same jurisdiction in which the recall election is held, if the number of voters eligible to vote at that next regularly scheduled election equal at least 50 percent of all the voters eligible to vote at the recall election.

(c) If the majority vote on the question is to recall, the officer is removed and, if there is a candidate, the candidate who receives a plurality is the successor. The officer may not be a candidate, nor shall there be any candidacy for an office filled pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 16 of Article VI.

California Constitution (Elections)

44 posted on 09/15/2003 7:58:23 PM PDT by arasina (Liberals stink-including my own brother, who proudly proclaims he's a card-carrying member of ACLU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Hey Mann!

Da 9th iz on FIRE!

Da SUE Pream court should put dem out wid an ice pick an uh sledge hammer.

Ha ! I kill me.

Congress will eventually bust up this bunch of sycophants.
45 posted on 09/15/2003 7:58:30 PM PDT by kennyboy509 (Ha ! I kill me again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Hey D1:

How do we impeach these three Justices? Any idea?

Is it the House / Senate thing again, you know like Clinton?

Just wondering where to start...

DD

46 posted on 09/15/2003 8:32:47 PM PDT by DiamondDon1 (Official Tombot, Member VRWC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sd-joe
Yep, that's the next step. We have to destroy democracy to save democratic values.
47 posted on 09/15/2003 8:47:04 PM PDT by Iconoclast2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: randita
These are Federal Judges and can only be impeached by Congress. I agree that this is the solution. Impeach a few judges, cut off their pay. For the education of the others...

The problem is that Republican elected officials, with a few exceptions, are spineless, cowardly, creeps. We need to unelect many of them in the primary.

48 posted on 09/15/2003 8:58:18 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Iconoclast2
Hmmmm.
49 posted on 09/15/2003 9:00:35 PM PDT by sd-joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DiamondDon1
Yup. All you need is for the House Judiciary Committee http://www.house.gov/judiciary/ to vote Articles of Impeachment. Then you need a majority of the House. If you get that, it goes over to the Senate for trial. What they've done is use the Senate Judiciary committee and then have a pro forma trial in the whole Senate, then a vote. I believe it takes a two-thirds vote.

The chances of successfully removing these judges is nil, but it would be a great lesson for other judges to stop trying to run the country from their courtrooms. Being an impeached judge would still be a huge slap in the face and well worth doing.

50 posted on 09/15/2003 9:11:02 PM PDT by Jabba the Nutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson