a.SafaLab
The Neolibertarian NetworkAnd While We’re At It
This from Senator Burns’ office just now:
Thursday, June 23, 2005Split The Ninth Circuit
Burns Joins Colleagues Sponsoring Bill To Form 12th Circuit
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mont) joined several western Senators today introducing legislation to split the geographically large 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into two districts, creating the 12th Circuit Court of Appeals. States covered under the jurisdiction of the proposed 12th Circuit would include Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. The 9th Circuit would remain California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands.
The legislation would also provide for the new 12th Circuit to hold sessions in Portland, Oregon; Phoenix, Arizona; and at the request of Senator Burns, Missoula, Montana was added to the rotation. This would spread the geographic burden more equitably among the states.
“Regardless of my feelings about some of the questionable decisions rendered out of the ninth,†said Burns, “This comes down to a basic constitutional question. The geographically massive 9th Circuit is backlogged with cases, even if you take out all the other states besides California. This backlog isn’t just an inconvenience, it’s an arguable violation of the Constitution and the right to due process. We, in Congress, have a duty to ensure the Judicial branch has the tools to perform their job. It is time to fix this problem.â€
Joining Burns in sponsoring the legislation are Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ted Stevens (R-AK), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Larry Craig (R-ID).
Good idea. Now get busy on how to fix that shitty Kelo ruling.
The information on this site is not intended as individualized investment advice and all investment decisions by a reader must in all cases be made by the reader either individually or together with his/her investment professional. The views expressed in articles appearing on this site are solely those of Dave Budge and should not be attributed to any other person or entity except where expressly stated.
Print This Post
Well, looking at the other senators that signed on, I must say that the one fella’s name pretty much says it all. This bill is CRAPO, with a capital CRAP! But burnsie has been tryin’ stuff equally as goofy for years. It’s just him.
Maybe you should explain why this is either a good or bad idea rather than spitting out pajoratives.
Splitting the 9th is a rotten idea, because it creates a bizarre precedent vacuum, which encourages the wrong sorts of judicial activism. I may write something about Kelo later.
You’ll need to clear that up for me. Why would not a new Circuit use precidents from the other bodies, as they do now if no internal precident has been set? Additionally, why would they not just use the precidents of the 9th with the rationale of the new circuit have been under its former jurisdicion?
I see your reasoning as non-compelling.
In our history we have created new circuits as growth dicated. What has changed?
The precedent of the supposedly more liberal California and upper-West Coast Area are the primary reasons for political actors such as Burns wanting to change the Circuit area, and they have wanted to change it for some time. What they apparently don’t realize is that the Montana State precedent is ultra liberal conmpared to much of the country particularly in the area of privacy. Don,t be fooled. This is not an attack on the workload of the Circuit or any attempt at a promotion of a more smooth running judiciary. It is a notably moronic attack on precedents and the use thereof for political reasons. For a more comprehensive explanation you are welcome to go here and read what a Montana State Supreme Court Justice has to say.
V.,
I’m not fooled by anything, but one’s man’s activism is another man’s justice. So I agree with the split on many levels not the least of which is a more constructionist circuit. Call me what you want.
As for Justice Sheehy’s opinion – what that line – “everybody has one.”
Fair enough. I forgot to mention that the number one reason for the Supremes to grant certiorari is to make a decisive rule where Appeals Courts have disagreed, and they do so often. Moreover from the “Let’s keep governmnent to a reasonable size” standpoint, I think that the more courts there are, the more likely it is for those courts to rule in favor of the government, which is the cause of much distress like the Kelo dissappointment.
V.,
You’ve got to be law student. No?
But one may argue that the more “courts” we have the greater plurality of debate we produce. I’m all for small government (no shit?) but the judiciary is not a drain on our fiscal resources. I’ll pony up.