Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking Up (Circuit Courts) Is Hard To Do
President Trump once again speaks before he thinks. He may not like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit, but breaking up the circuit would not accomplish any his goals. It would only give two points of access for those who are opposed to his decision. So he should think at the very least of these complications. First, he cannot just break up the circuit by himself. He needs to get Congress to do this, which it won’t if he acting out of pique. Nor is there any easy way to do this because California is so big, and it is impractical to cut it in half. A circuit with California, Hawaii and Alaska looks a bit lopsided. He also needs to think through whether it makes sense for a whole variety of administrative reasons.
Indeed, the best thing that he could do is to appoint strong judges to the lower courts, but there are nominees. And if he does appoint strong people, he takes the risk that they too will rule against him. I thought that there was a good deal of strength in the arguments against him in both the immigration case and the sanctuary cities case.
Published in General
My thought has always been that a shake up of the district boundaries are in order.
Put NV, AZ, ID, MT into the 10th district with UT, CO, NM, and WY.
Put KS in the 8th and OK possibly in the 5th or 8th.
This way the Rocky Mountain and Great Basin states are all in one district as they all have similar demographics and federal land issues.
I think the issue needs to be studied more carefully. I’m not convinced that breaking up the districts would be a waste of time.
The article is written in a strange way that seems to indicate that California is not part of Mexico.
Sanctuary and all that too don’t you know.
Are you kidding? It sounds like endless fun to me.
Let Victor Davis Hanson draw the line for the next Treaty of Tordesillas…
Perhaps all the coastal California counties should get stuck with the 9th.
Better yet, pull names of California counties out of a hat. Half get the 9th. The other half get something new.
All California counties that start with the letters “San” or “Sa” get stuck with the 9th…
The few counties where the majority of the people DO speak English, don’t get stuck with the 9th.
Let Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, Seattle, and Portland get stuck with the 9th.
Move the new 9th to Barrow Point, Alaska; perhaps in the middle of Nevada; or that Hawaiian island that is used as a leper colony.
Please don’t write sentences like this where people can read them while eating. Having a partially-chewed hamburger fly out your nose poses a serious threat of choking.
Stuff like this is why I seriously question why I’m a member here. With friends like these…
I’m afraid the OP has posted before he has thought. His argument is that it is hard, that it requires congress, that it would create two points of access for the President’s critics, and that it would not accomplish the President’s goals.
As to the President’s goals: what are they? Surely one such reasonable goal would be to remove large numbers of US citizens from the statistical certainty of having to live considerable parts of their lives under the control of decisions that will be reversed at the Supreme Court level.
As to providing “two points of access”, that is to assume that the only way to split the circuit is to split the circuit’s infrastructure. But what if the new circuit – and why not have it include California, Alaska and Hawai’i? – had an entirely new set of judges and court staff? The existing bozos could keep Arizona…
But this would be administratively difficult. Well, so is building a casino in New Jersey. Neither may be a smart thing to do, but long-term planning and follow-through do seem to be a strength of the current President.
And Congress? Well, what the [CoC] else are they doing?
After 25 years practicing within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit the bruise on my head from pounding it against the wall still hasn’t healed even after 8 years out of the practice. Likely never will.
You were mistaken.
Physician heal thyself.
Although I am sympathetic to splitting the circuit because of its size, the only meaningful solution is replacing the bad judges with good judges. Anything else is shuffling the deck chairs.
I believe the reasoning goes something like this…”Did Trump do it? Well then, it must be wrong. Were there arguments against Trump’s orders in both these cases? Absolutely. Was there a good deal of strength in those arguments? Hardly. This was judicial tyranny/over reach by definition. Judge/district shopping was obvious and the long term results may be very dangerous. The good thing about this post was that Mr Epstein didn’t burden us with his usual verbosity.
I would have never guessed Professor Epstein was a Neil Sedaka fan.
This is why math is better than liberal arts.
I can hear 500 different “expert” opinions on whether this was a good or bad decision… and the vast majority seem to fall in line with “do I or do I not like Trump?”
If you get that many different answers from mathematicians on a math problem, you weren’t asking experts.
I say get rid of the ninth circuit (can all the judges), then redraw the other circuits to ensure a majority of conservative circuits much the way the congressional district lines are drawn. Also, require the judges to actually live in their districts.
Can’t can them. Article III judges have life tenure.
There seems to be a popular misconception that the Ninth Circuit is liberal due to its population being dominated by the liberal state of California. That isn’t necessarily true. Judicial circuits do not necessarily correspond to the political ideology of their inhabitants. I’m in favor of splitting up the Ninth Circuit, simply because it is impracticably large and unwieldy, but those who, like myself, would like to see its jurisprudential balance shifted should be calling on Donald to actually nominate some conservative judges to the ninth circuit. Federal circuit court jurisprudence is much more a function of appointments than it is of anything else.
Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.
Yeah, but math has nothing to offer on the hard questions like how do you turn around an out of control Circuit Court. (4.5? Really?!) More fundamentally, belief in experts IS the problem with progressives.
Sometimes a little ad hominem in the morning feels real good. It kinda gets the day going. Haven’t you ever experienced that @isaacsmith?
Of course I have. Schadenfreude too. But not something I’m proud of. And while it may feel good to take the shot, it tends to weaken the force of your argument.
Actually, Isaac, I was just having a little fun…sorry you didn’t recognize that. BTW, calling Epstein verbose is like calling water wet, don’t you think?
Fair enough. Sorry for being dim. I’ll keep my thoughts on Epstein’s writing to myself. ;-)