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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 22 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Z in MT Member
    Z in MT
    @ZinMT

    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.

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    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.

    • #2
  3. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    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.

    California is so big, and it is impractical to cut it in half.

    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.

    • #3
  4. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    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.

    • #4
  5. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Stuff like this is why I seriously question why I’m a member here. With friends like these…

    • #5
  6. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    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?

    • #6
  7. Mike Rapkoch Member
    Mike Rapkoch
    @MikeRapkoch

    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.

    • #7
  8. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    You were mistaken.

    • #8
  9. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    Physician heal thyself.

    • #9
  10. Quinn the Eskimo Member
    Quinn the Eskimo
    @

    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.

    • #10
  11. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    You were mistaken.

    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.

    • #11
  12. EDISONPARKS Member
    EDISONPARKS
    @user_54742

    I would have never guessed Professor Epstein was a Neil Sedaka fan.

    • #12
  13. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    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.

    • #13
  14. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    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.

    • #14
  15. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    Stad (View Comment):
    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.

    • #15
  16. Salvatore Padula Inactive
    Salvatore Padula
    @SalvatorePadula

    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.

    • #16
  17. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    cdor (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    You were mistaken.

    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.

    Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.

    • #17
  18. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    Stina (View Comment):

    Richard Epstein: 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.

    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.

    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.

    • #18
  19. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):
    Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.

    Sometimes a little ad hominem in the morning feels real good. It kinda gets the day going. Haven’t you ever experienced that @isaacsmith?

    • #19
  20. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    cdor (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):
    Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.

    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.

    • #20
  21. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):
    Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.

    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?

    • #21
  22. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    cdor (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):
    Other than the ad hominem shot at Mr. Epstein, that’s pretty much my thinking.

    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.  ;-)

    • #22
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.