In defense of the 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals

The fact of the matter is that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not "the most liberal" court in the country. In fact, it contains more Republican nominated justices than most circuits in the country. Remind the talking heads that the so called "pledge of allegiance" decision was written by a Reagan appointee.

Here's a quick synopsis of the Court's ruling that you won't hear in the 60 second white house approved response mouthed by the media:
1) The California Sec'y of State had entered into a consent decree with the Justice Department earlier this year to eliminate punch card systems in the four remaining California counties that still use them before the election next Spring (2004).
2) The Court found that punch card systems in California would statistically deprive 40,000 voters of their vote if they were used in these four counties.
3) Had the recall initiative not been certified for another six weeks, under the California Constitution, the election would have been held next Spring anyway when all punch card systems would have been replaced.
4) Under Bush v. Gore, the Court found that disenfranchising 40,000 voters under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution trumps the California State Constitution requirement for an election in 80 days.

As long as the White House sticks to the "If it was good enough to elect Davis last year ...." line of logic they might as well argue that "If the KKK kept the uppity blacks from the polls in the 1900's ..."

Don't let the Faux News talking heads mislead you about the law and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

We would learn the majority rule, the minority rule, and then the California rule, because it was always really strange. Just sayin'.

Does that mean, that all the "California rules" I memorized were fake?

Granted the 9th Circuit is not the California Supreme Court, but they do tend to view things the way.

And just because a judge is nominated by a Republican does not mean they are conservative. (Souter anyone?) In California, the field to choose from is slightly skewed to begin with.

The 9th Circuit is generally out of step with the rest of the appellate courts. I'm not saying which is right or wrong. But it's no "myth" to say that they are different.

Per the number of cases they hear which is larger than any other court they really are NOT overturned all that much...read my much longer post on the matter below.

They were just beginning to get smeared in the early 80's when I graduated from law school. That was about the time the Federalist Society started making inroads at the nation's top law schools.

I have to admit that finding people who use this board and still believe that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a "California-thing" is baffling. I completely understand that the Federalist Society's grip on law schools in our country produced the brain-washed attorneys who blindly believe the Republican myth to explain their loss on social and labor issues tangentially related to Court decisions. I'm very surprised though that this blind obedience still exists today.

Perhaps we should ask specifics then:
What part of the so-called pledge of allegiance case is wrong?

What part of the Court's decision yesterday granting a preliminary injunction is wrong?

how renegade :D

By the time I was in law school, we were debunking the so-called Ninth Circuit myth. Again, the Court has a majority of Republican nominees, that certainly has to debunk the myth of massive reversals at the Supreme Court being because of the nasty "libruls"

I believe some people are confusing the California Supreme Court andthe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The terminology "The California Rule" was used to describe decisions by the California Supreme Court, not the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

It's my understanding that fhe "California Rule" used to be studied in law schools because the California Supreme Court had an uncanny knack in the 60's and 70's to be on the leading edge of social and labor issues that eventually were adopted by the rest of the States ... thereby making studying these decisions insightful for law students ...

Hope that explains what you learned in law school.

COMPARED to the number of cases they have heard, they really are NOT overturned that often.There have been very few UNANIMOUS decisions against them although they DO exist, as they do with other courts including the 5th circuit (the one most intent on undermining the intent of laws..particularly those pertaining to consumer protection)

Here's some actual numbers:


1. Reversals
There have been more cases from the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court than any other circuit in recent years. There have also been more cases decided by the Ninth Circuit in recent years than any other circuit. As set forth in the study by the Honorable Jerome Farris, a Ninth Circuit judge recently senior, in 1995 the Ninth Circuit decided 7,955 matters, in 1996 7,813, and in 1997 8,701. The percentage of reversals as against the total number of cases decided was 3/10 of 1%.

http://www.abanet.org/govaffairs/testimony/garvey9th.html

The truth of the matter is that Republicans would like to dilute the effect of the 9th Circuit. See also:

During the last several years, Supreme Court reversal rates of Ninth Circuit decisions have been consistent with that of other circuits. For example, during this past term, on a percentage basis, there were seven other circuits whose reversal rates exceeded ours. Perhaps more importantly, the number of petitions for certiorari granted by the Supreme Court arising out of decisions of the Ninth Circuit has declined significantly in recent years.

Even in the year most frequently cited by critics, 1996, our circuit was not the most reversed circuit on a percentage basis. That year, five circuits had all of their decisions reversed: the First, Second, Seventh, D.C., and Federal circuits. And since that time, we've had 14 new members added to our court.

All of this indicates that our opinions are receiving an appropriate amount of internal examination, and the consistency of our opinions does not vary from that of other circuits.


http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju80880.000/hju80880_0.HTM

More supportive documentation...aka GRANTS for conservative Judicial activism and business related seminars in shich judges are BRIBED to rethink their positions:

http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/uchiclawandecon.htm

The Chicago Acid Bath
The Impoverished Logic of "Law and Economics"

http://www.prospect.org/print/V9/36/purdy-j.html


The Big Three

Community Rights Counsel's review of judges' financial disclosure forms confirms that right-leaning, anti-regulatory organizations dominate private judicial education. Indeed, the three organizations hosting the most trips—the Law and Economics Center (LEC), the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE) and Liberty Fund (collectively “the Big Three”), with 246, 194 and 100 trips reported by judges, respectively—share a remarkably similar conservative/libertarian ideology and structure their seminars to advance this ideology.
Reported attendance at Big Three seminars increased significantly between 1992 and 1998, with a record 88 judges taking trips in 1998. With about 800 active judges at any given time, this means that about 10% of the federal judiciary takes a Big Three trip each year. For more on the groups hosting junkets, read Chapter 2 of the full report.

http://www.tripsforjudges.org/big_3.html

August 28, 2000






The Wooing of Our Judges
By ABNER MIKVA

http://www.mediatransparency.org/stories/wooing_judges.htm


http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/cov_17feature.html

Tipping the antitrust scales
How the right helped make the federal courts safe for Microsoft.

BY ANDREW LEONARD | Microsoft's bumbling defense during its antitrust trial has startled even the software company's most fervent critics. The government, most observers agree, has constructed an unexpectedly strong case. Microsoft could actually lose.

So what? If Microsoft loses, it will undoubtedly appeal. And at the appellate court level, Microsoft may well find the antitrust weather more to its liking.

It's not just that the particular court certain to hear any appeal is dominated by conservative Reagan-Bush appointees who look askance at government intervention in the economy -- although that certainly helps. More troubling, say some antitrust experts, is the entire federal judiciary's resistance to aggressive enforcement of the antitrust laws -- a reluctance that may in large part be due to the influence of a well-funded campaign to exalt one particular school of legal thought over all others: a discipline known as "law and economics."


http://www.metrolink.net/~cmueller/ii-09.html

ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Vol. 25, No. 2
JUDICIAL SEMINARS:

ECONOMICS, ACADEMIA, AND

CORPORATE MONEY IN AMERICA

Nan Aron*

Barbara Moulton

Chris Owens



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Business must accept--indeed, embrace--the fact that the Judiciary must be lobbied as intensively as the Executive or the Legislature if business interests are to be given fair consideration in the adjudicative process.

Leslie Cheek, Senior Vice-President, Crum & Forster Insurance

Liability in the 1990's: A Risk-Taker's Perspective

INTRODUCTION
Judicial 'Education'
Educational programs for judges have mushroomed during the last few decades. Today, numerous public and private organizations sponsor seminars, workshops, or conferences specifically designed to enhance the knowledge of judges in particular areas of the law. The sponsoring groups run the gamut from the Federal Judicial Center, the governmental agency officially responsible for the continuing education of federal judges, to law schools, foundations, and advocacy organizations. Corporate and foundation officials have capitalized on the growth of these programs. A review of the 1988 and 1990 federal judicial disclosure forms revealed that two of the more popular seminars for federal judges involve law and economics and "civil justice reform." Run by the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University School of Law and Yale Law School (respectively), and underwritten by corporations and like-minded foundations, these programs are offered completely free-of-charge, and the sponsors cover all travel, lodging, and meal expenses for the most powerful players in the civil justice system--judges.

http://www.ncrp.org/reports/moving.htm

Moving A Public Policy Agenda: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 1997


CONSERVATIVE FOUNDATIONS PREVAIL IN SHAPING PUBLIC POLICIES
New Report Documents Public Policy Impact of 12 Core Foundations


Washington, D.C. -- With limited resources but a strong political vision, conservative foundations are playing a major role in shaping public policy priorities according to a new study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP) titled Moving a Public Policy Agenda: the Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations.
From 1992 to 1994, twelve conservative foundations studied by NCRP -- including the Bradley, Scaife and Olin foundations -- controlled assets of $1.1 billion and awarded $300 million in grants. While the size of their grantmaking programs may pale in comparison to some of the nation's largest foundations, conservative funders have unmatched success in advocating for their right-wing political agenda. NCRP found several factors contributing to this success:

First, they departed from grantmaking norms in the philanthropic sector by funding extremely aggressive and ideological institutions routinely committed to influencing budget and policy priorities. Two-thirds of their grant dollars -- $210 million out of $300 million total -- went to organizations and programs pursuing policy agendas based on the privatization of government services, deep reductions in federal anti-poverty spending, industrial deregulation, and the transfer of responsibility for social welfare to state and local government and the charitable sector.

Second, at a time when foundation and corporate leaders are increasingly committing their resources locally, the conservative foundations maintained an unusually strong focus on national public policy institutions. These investments have exacerbated resource disparities between multi-issue public policy institutions on the left and right sides of the political spectrum. The top five conservative multi-issue public policy groups in the NCRP study including Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy operated on $77 million in combined revenues in 1995 compared to $18.6 million of their eight political equivalents on the left.

Third, the conservative foundations demonstrated a preference for the marketing of ideas in their grantmaking. The majority of grantees in NCRP's study have developed sophisticated and effective media outreach strategies. For example, the fifth largest grantee in the study, Citizens for a Sound Economy, produced more than 130 policy papers, conducted 50 different advertising campaigns, appeared on 175 radio and television news shows, placed 235 op-ed articles, and received coverage in more than 4,000 news articles in 1995 alone. CSE's marketing and media efforts are the norm rather than exception among the conservative grantees. In the absence of similar efforts by liberal organizations and funders, communications campaigns like these have contributed to the current climate where right- wing ideas, sometimes based on inaccurate information, go unchallenged.

snip
The grantmaking of the 12 foundations offers valuable lessons for grantmakers seeking to influence policy trends. They include: 1) Understanding the importance of ideology and overarching frameworks; 2) Helping to build strong institutions by providing ample general operating support; 3) Maintaining a national policy focus and concentrating resources; 4) Recognizing the importance of media, marketing and persuasive communications; 5) Creating and cultivating public intellectuals and policy leaders; 6) Supporting multiple social change strategies including advocacy, leadership development, and constituency mobilization; and 7) Taking a long- haul approach.


Seems to me some folks have a fucked up interpretation of activism

Wish I'd had this one earlier on a rebuttal.

A certain unnameable thrice-married fatboy was diagramming the dynamics of the 9th circuit.

Pointed out that the SCOTUS judge that this district falls under is Sandra Day O'Conner (the 5th Bush voter), but she's "unavailable". How convenient. This then falls to Fat Tony Scalia. Pointed out that the "equal protection" ruling which gave Bush the non-win victory over Gore would likely be overturned by Tony.

So, anybody know where she's being hidden?

I'm not surprised that Sandra Dee is not available, the Court is in recess and Justices routinely travel internationally speaking around the World and even teaching abroad as W's "favorite Justice" Antonin "Anthony" Scalia has done on several occassions.

I wasn't aware that Anthony took over responsibility for emergency appeals from the 9th Circuit though ... If lard-ass says so, doesn't necessarily make it so, though.

position that the counting of votes should continue but they made the decision with 2 hours to go before the "deadline" of Dec 12?

In fact, the USSC decided for Gore, but did so in a way to make the judgement impossible to make worthwhile. So they can rule the same way, only this time they will rule quickly so the repuke gets the benefit of the ruling.

I was aware of that. They said that the statewide recount could continue, but, whoops, too late to do so. After waiting from 10am Saturday to 10pm Tuesday.

People need talking points.

They used Gore v Bush as precedent set by a right wing court. Repubs just want to have thier cake and eat it too.

Plus the more the recall gets debated, the less support they will have.