SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JohnM who wrote (8398)9/17/2003 10:26:50 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793755
 
Will Congress split the 9th District?




9th Circuit Fires Up Conservatives Again
The ruling on the recall election may provide more ammunition for Republican efforts in Congress to split up the appeals court.
By Megan Garvey
Times Staff Writer

September 17, 2003

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' history of controversial rulings and reversals by the U.S. Supreme Court have made it a frequent target of attacks from conservatives, who say the court's liberal judges ignore established law.

Monday's ruling by a three-judge panel to delay California's recall election fueled long-burning fires.

"Outrageous, outlandish, out of control. They are making a mockery of the judicial system," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday. He dubbed the randomly selected judges who made the ruling "poster triplets for judicial activism."

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-North Hollywood) called conservatives' steady complaints about the 9th Circuit "stock rhetoric."

"These judges were appointed to life terms so that they would make decisions based on principles and justice and not on the politics of the moment," Berman said.

"Sometimes people in the legislative branch have a hard time accepting that, but our founding fathers — they knew what they were doing."

With its 26 judges, 17 of them appointed by Democratic presidents, the 9th Circuit is widely considered to be the most liberal in the nation's federal appeals circuit. The court has so many Democratic appointees in large part because it was expanded in the 1970s, during the Carter administration.

Critics point to its high rate of reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overturned about 80% of cases reviewed from the 9th Circuit over the last seven years. In many instances, the reversals were unanimous, which critics cite as evidence that the 9th Circuit disregards existing law.

But other circuit courts, most of which have far smaller caseloads, sometimes are reversed at higher rates than the 9th. In any case, the Supreme Court reviews only a tiny percentage of judicial rulings made each year.

Already, the 9th Circuit is the target of bills introduced by Republicans in Congress that seek to split the massive Western court in two — a proposal Democrats allege is motivated more by politics than judicial expediency.

The move to split the court dates back more than a decade, predating some of the 9th Circuit's most controversial decisions. Most notably last year, in a 2-1 ruling that drew pickets to the homes of ruling judges and condemnation from many in Washington, the 9th Circuit found that requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in schools was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it includes the words "under God."

At a hearing last year on splitting the 9th Circuit, Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.) alluded to the passions stirred by the court when he reminded his fellow committee members he looked forward to a "civil discussion." He called the discussion about to take place "the latest installment of a long-running saga involving the 9th and its operations."

The panel's decision to delay the Oct. 7 recall election — which was stayed a week to allow appeals — "will be more ammunition," said Chapman University law professor John Eastman. "I suspect you will see more congressional efforts to limit the scope of jurisdiction of federal courts on elections."

The 9th Circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, in addition to the U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. In contrast, the jurisdiction of the 2nd Court of Appeals includes only Connecticut, New York and Vermont.

In addition to the 9th Circuit's unpopular Pledge of Allegiance decision, other controversial rulings include:

• A decision earlier this month to overturn the judge-imposed death penalty sentences of more than 100 inmates in Arizona, Idaho and Montana. The ruling retroactively applied a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that juries must make all key findings in capital cases.

• Upholding of a 1996 California law, backed by voters, that allowed marijuana to be used for medical purposes. In a 2001 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the 9th Circuit, saying there were no exceptions to federal drug laws.

Then, this year, the 9th Circuit in a 3-0 decision upheld a lower court's ruling that barred federal prosecutors from taking action against doctors who advised patients that marijuana might benefit them medically. The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to strip prescription privileges from doctors who make such recommendations.

• A decision last December effectively blocking plans for new oil drilling off the California coast until the California Coastal Commission reviews them for environmental hazards. The Bush administration decided not to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, but has sought to rewrite federal rules to limit states' ability to control the areas off their shorelines.

One ruling that drew no conservative ire was a decision late last year to permit Gennifer Flowers, who says she had a long-term affair with former President Clinton, to pursue a libel and conspiracy case against Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and two former top presidential aides, James Carville and George Stephanopoulos.

The author of the House bill seeking to split the 9th Circuit, Rep. Michael K. Simpson (R-Idaho), said he hopes to bring the matter to a vote sometime in this session. He said the 9th Circuit's decision to delay California's recall will "stir those passions" that have made discussions of the court's fate as much about politics as policy.

But he called political considerations a "separate issue" from the size of the court, the principal reason he said it should be divided. "I'm not sure if the recent controversy helps or hurts me," Simpson said. "It takes the matter away from the administration of justice to the political arena. It may add sponsors, but it also adds opposition."

*

(Begin Text of Infobox)

9th Circuit facts

Some noteworthy facts about the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:

• The court is known for being the nation's most-reversed federal appeals court — partly because its 40 presidentially appointed judges make it the largest federal appeals bench in the nation.

• It also is viewed as the most liberal federal appeals court.

• It is most noted for its 2002 opinion that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional when recited in public schools. That decision has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Two weeks ago, the 9th Circuit overturned more than 100 death sentences in Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada. That case is likely to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

• The Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit after it upheld the right of California marijuana clubs to dole out pot to the sick.

• The Supreme Court reversed a 9th Circuit ruling overturning a law allowing tenants to be evicted from federal housing for drug use.

• The 9th Circuit reversed its ruling that inmates have a right to mail their sperm from prison.

• Contrary to its liberal image, the court reinstated tough Reagan-era drug-sentencing laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
latimes.com
THE RECALL CAMPAIGN
a d v e r t i s e m e n t



To: JohnM who wrote (8398)9/18/2003 1:47:25 AM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793755
 
I wondered how long it would take for this to happen

Texas GOP Has Intraparty Dispute Over Redistricting

By Lee Hockstader
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 18, 2003; Page A03

AUSTIN, Sept. 17 -- Texas Republicans, having finally muscled the Democrats into a corner in their four-month fight to redraw the state's congressional district lines, have moved on to a new phase of the operation: Now they are brawling among themselves over how to draw the map.

The internecine dispute has embarrassed Republican leaders and may imperil the party's plans to use its new dominance of the state legislature to push through a map designed to shift as many as six additional congressional seats into Republican hands.

That would expand the party's margin of control in the U.S. House and give Texas 21 GOP House seats, more than any other state.

Last week, Texas GOP lawmakers celebrated a victory when they broke the unity of 11 Democratic state senators who had fled to New Mexico, forcing them to return to the State Capitol and take up the redistricting proposal in a third consecutive special session called by Gov. Rick Perry (R) since early this summer.

Before dawn this morning, the Republicans, who control the Texas House and Senate, pushed a new congressional district map through the House over bitter objections by Democrats.

But the House's version is unacceptable to some moderate Senate Republicans, and a public squabble over district boundaries between one west Texas state senator and the speaker of the Texas House{ndash}both Republicans -- has stalled progress toward a new map, at least temporarily.

The intraparty dispute has become so intractable that Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), the House majority leader who has been actively involved in pushing the redistricting idea in the state legislature, flew to Austin last week to broker a compromise among the Republicans. He failed.

For their part, the Democrats, even while licking their wounds, are hoping that the GOP's fraternal quarrels may yet delay any new redistricting plan from being implemented in time for next year's general election.

The chief problem for the Republicans involves how to draw the congressional district lines in west Texas. Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick is insisting on a district dominated by his hometown (and President Bush's boyhood home) of Midland, an oil and gas hub overshadowed in the current congressional map by Lubbock, a city to the north with twice Midland's population.

But state Sen. Robert Duncan (R), who represents Lubbock, said his constituents ardently oppose splitting Lubbock from Midland on the congressional map.

Republicans insist they will find a compromise by next week. "There's a lot of ways to skin this cat," said David Beckwith, spokesman for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst (R).

washingtonpost.com