Feds to break up 9th Circuit Court?

[danr55]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139436,00.html

Sounds like the guys who tried to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance and who dealt USO such a great deal, are on the hit list for the newly elected conservative Congress. I know this will outrage a few liberals we have here, but I think it's long past due.

 

[A-con]

We can only hope.

 

[BigHornRam]

This what I would call "progress".

 

[feclnogn]

Good ridance.

 

[guppie9]

Please, please, please, please, please, please do this.

 

[1_pointer]

Just curious, but would 'disbanding' the court reverse any of their decisions?

 

[JoseCuervo]

1-Ptr,

The "peanut gallery" is once again clueless, but don't stop them, they are on a roll....

If the 9th ever makes a "bad" decision, then that decision would be appealed to the Supremes. If you take the time to do the research, the reversal rate of the 9th is only slightly higher than other districts and can easily be explained by the types of cases that they can hear that break new legal ground (think Intelectual Property cases from the High Tech industry in CA.)

For some reason the "peanut gallery" appears not to want the US Constitution upheld, yet another product of Dubya's brainwashing the masses into giving up our Rights (ala the Patriot Act)! |oo

 

[guppie9]

Actually Gunner, what I would like to do is break up the largest circuit court in the US. I don't think its a good idea to lump all the western US into one court. Whether you are liberal or conservative, I think that breaking up this court into more manageable sections is the smart thing to do. It will lighten the caseloads and allow the courts to do their job in a timely fashion.

 

[A-con]

Did you say everever make a bad decision ? :BLEEP: |oo

The 9th court blows bad decisions out their ass all the time. Most of them are founded in enought law to avoid review the the supreme court, but that dosn't mean they arn't bad. (any two courts can decide the same issue completly different, and both have the "law" on their side ) The supreme court can't review every close call, we would need ten supreme courts just for the 9th court alone.
This court is loaded up with activest judges, who like to make/change law from the bench, despite what lawmakers and the people want. The entire western united states would be better off is the whole 9th was diagnoised with CWD.
:MAD

This court dosn't give a shit what the law really intended , they decide cases based on what left coast, butt buddy, tree hugging, fruit loop socity wants.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Actually Gunner, what I would like to do is break up the largest circuit court in the US. I don't think its a good idea to lump all the western US into one court. Whether you are liberal or conservative, I think that breaking up this court into more manageable sections is the smart thing to do. It will lighten the caseloads and allow the courts to do their job in a timely fashion.

Guseippie,
I don't think any of the "peanut gallery"'s comments were based on their concern for efficiency and expediency in the Appelate courts. I may be wrong, but I think they were more concerned with the fact that the 9th has chosen to uphold the Constitution, whereas they would prefer most of our Constitutional Rights be removed, hence their support of Dubya (and his assault on our rights thru the Patriot Act).

A-Con,
IF their decisions are "bad", but founded in law. Doesn't that make them the correct decision? Just because you don't like the decision, does not make it bad. IF their decision is bad, they get appealed to the Supremes.

And why do you think the GOP wants to break up the 9th?

 

[BigHornRam]

Acon,

"The entire western united states would be better off is the whole 9th was diagnoised with CWD. "

LMAO

EG,

The people spoke. Your POV is that of a loser. House cleaning time. Get used to it.

Paul

 

[JoseCuervo]

EG,

The people spoke. Your POV is that of a loser. House cleaning time. Get used to it.

Paul

Paul,

You might read up on your Judicial History, and look up the sections on FDR's attempts to increase the number on the Supreme Court.

Messing with the Judicial system for political gain is a dangerous direction. But I would love to hear how somebody as stupid as you would think things would be better with another Circuit carved out of the 9th.

This ought to be funnier than Hell to read your reply on that one.... Good luck on coming up with an answer... |oo

 

[BigHornRam]

E.G.,

The judges job is to interpet law, not make it. The 9th curcuit cannot comprehend that simple fact. Time to replace them with judges that do. If you call that "messing with the Judicial System for political gain", so be it. Guilty as charged.

Paul

 

[Ithaca 37]

Can you guys who are so opposed to the 9th Court please give us some recent (last 20 years) decisions you didn't like. It would be even better if you could give us the reasons why those decisions were not founded in law, and why those decisions were not appealed to the Supreme Court-----or why the Supreme declined to review them, if that was the case.

Three or four well explained cases will be enough to give us an idea if you know anything about law. Thanks in advance.

 

[danr55]

THe 9th court upheld that the 1st amendment to the constitution supported the idea that the words "UNDER GOD" should be removed from the Pledge of Alliegance because it provided for a separation of church and state. It does no such thing. If anyone would take a moment to READ that amendment, Here...let me make it easy for you..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What part of that indicates that the words UNDER GOD should not appear in any State sporsored document? How many times does the word GOD appear on the walls and doors and other ornamental adornment at the US Supreme Court? The sole intent of that writing is to prohibit the Government from establishing and OFFICIAL religion for the United States.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's more info on that decision:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/

And lots more links here:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=9th+circuit+court+under+god&btnG=Google+Search

 

[A-con]

So Gunner, I see you read the first two sentances of my post, but not the rest of it.
Let me help.

"(any two courts can decide the same issue completly different, and both have the "law" on their side ) The supreme court can't review every close call, we would need ten supreme courts just for the 9th court alone.
This court is loaded up with activest judges, who like to make/change law from the bench, despite what lawmakers and the people want. The entire western united states would be better off is the whole 9th was diagnoised with CWD. "

Let me know how far you get with the rest of it, maby I could post with bigger letters.

 

[danr55]

Ithica, An incorrect decision in one case does not justify a bad decision in another case. The entire concept of "case law" exists to preclude one court ruling on something differently than another court did, to avoid the idea that a mistake may have been made by one court or judge, or the other.

Read the words..... There is nothing in there that even slightly suggests that the words "Under God" should be excluded or that the Ten Commandments being in a Court House is a violation of Constitutional Law. If it is, The Supreme Court of this country should be torn down and a new building constructed. If you ever get to Washington DC, visit the Court Building. If you get the opportunity, check out the doors to the chambers.

 

[JoseCuervo]

DanR,

Get real.... ARe you willing to add the "Under God, and Jehova, and Allah, and Buddah" back into the pledge?

If the 9th interperted the Constitution wrongly, I have full confidence it would be overturned upon appeal to the Supremes. Don't you have confidence in the system that was established by our Founders, or are you a Dubya supporter and want to abandon our Constitution?

 

[danr55]

Gummer, you must be a lawyer or a politician. I posted the First Amendment in it's entirety. Show me in anything that says or that could be translated into "The Ten Commandments shall not be posted in the Courthouse"....or "the Words UNDER GOD shall not be used in the Pledge of Alliegence"...

No.. the problem is not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it the spin that the Shyster Politicians and lawyers have put on it since it was written. It's men I lack faith in Gummer, not the system. Not the Constitution.. just the lawyers and politicians who have been trusted with it.

Isn't he fun to bait??