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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Agree wholeheartedly. David Dreier said on FNC last night that the 9th Circus basiclly declared null and void the law in the CA Constitution that says that a recall election must be held within 80 days of the recall petition certification. If it is postponed until March, obviously that violates state law. The equal protection question pulls the feds into it--or at least the left thinks it does.
If this 9th Circus decision holds on the basis of equal protection, that opens up so many cans of worms that the nation will be overrun with the slimy creatures.
Most states do not have uniform voting procedures from county to county. And even if they do, there are certain areas where voter error is much higher even when the voting procedure is exactly the same. So is someone's equal protection violated if they happen to be stupid and can't figure out how to vote properly when other people are smarter and can?
Gore vs. Bush was a terrible precedent. I'm grateful it turned out the way it did, but I wish it didn't have to be done. And I don't blame it on Bush. It was Gore and the Democrats all the way. Even though they lost, they probably rejoiced over the fact that the precedent was set for courts to interfere in state election law. They could see the possibilities which have already come to fruition in NJ (almost in HI) and now in CA.
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.