S.276 - break up the 9th Circuit

[lowimpactuser]

It's become clearer and clearer to me there is no benefit to backing democratic positions on anything in California. Even IF I agree with particular issues, until they've been knocked down a bit, they have NO reason to come to the table. There is nothing to gain, especially as the statist bug has bit the democrats- not just "democratic" ideas, which USED to have some libertarian ones, but statist democrat positions. No thanks.

It's amazing as I see this dynamic play out I can't find the fault with it, after years of thinking that kind of thinking was too narrow.

[Jimi Jah]

Create another district and other states will be happy. Here, we will still be stuck with the 9th and those judges. I'd rather have those other states mad.

[Ubermcoupe]

Create another district and other states will be happy. Here, we will still be stuck with the 9th and those judges. I'd rather have those other states mad.

Says who?

Once the court is split into 2+ districts, the Justices will likely be asked their preference for court assignment - probably based on their current geographic area (aka where they reside). The other "open" seats would filled via executive appointment.

Outside of the gun issue, there are stronger merits to break-up the 9th circuit - let alone keeping the 9th together so "we" can "win" some gun cases.

Short of CA/HI/AK succeeding from the US and physically reducing the size of the 9th circuit, it will be broken up. It's only a matter of time.

[Blade Gunner]

McCann and the other free state Senators are going to throw CA under bus. The re districted 9th will be CA,OR,HI and the pacific territories. So CA gets stuck with even a more uber liberal court. This really puts the last nail in the coffin of 2A rights in CA. We are more completely screwed if this happens.

[Mute]

McCann and the other free state Senators are going to throw CA under bus. The re districted 9th will be CA,OR,HI and the pacific territories. So CA gets stuck with even a more uber liberal court. This really puts the last nail in the coffin of 2A rights in CA. We are more completely screwed if this happens.

How? If they just split off straight, the 9th will remain exactly the same. We'll only be further screwed if they move all the conservative justices to the new circuit.

I'm assuming the bill doesn't lay out how the seats will be filled. If that's the case, what's to prevent assigning X number of justices from the 9th to fill in seats in the new circuit and doing so in just the right number to give a conservative majorities in both the 9th and the new circuit?

[Blade Gunner]

How? If they just split off straight, the 9th will remain exactly the same. We'll only be further screwed if they move all the conservative justices to the new circuit.

I'm assuming the bill doesn't lay out how the seats will be filled. If that's the case, what's to prevent assigning X number of justices from the 9th to fill in seats in the new circuit and doing so in just the right number to give a conservative majorities in both the 9th and the new circuit?

The bill does not yet. But to get the 60 votes the dirty horse trading will get it amended to allow California, Hawaii, and Oregon based 9th District judges to stay in the Ninth. Since California represents the bulk of 9th district Judges, we'll get stuck with all these Progs further tilting the court to the left. Any chance to fix the make up of the 9th will be lost. The red state Senators are so disgusted with the blue state senators they just want to be rid of dealing with them.

[Ubermcoupe]

How? If they just split off straight, the 9th will remain exactly the same. We'll only be further screwed if they move all the conservative justices to the new circuit.

I'm assuming the bill doesn't lay out how the seats will be filled. If that's the case, what's to prevent assigning X number of justices from the 9th to fill in seats in the new circuit and doing so in just the right number to give a conservative majorities in both the 9th and the new circuit?

Historically, we can look to when the 11th was split off from the 5th circuit.
PDF: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cg...text=lawreview
Even back in the late 70s/1980, there was argument to split the 9th. The issues that plagued the 5th (an entire enbanc court of 26 Justices, for example) are all apply to the 9th today.

The bill (PDF: now Public Law 96-452) that split the 5th into the 11th defined how to divide the Justices. All active Justices were assigned a circuit by their geographic location before the bill was signed ("bad" news for CA...) or, if senior status, allowed the Justices to choose a seat in either court.

I continue to push back on those that argue that splitting the 9th is bad all around, because it will affect "our" ability to reach favorable outcomes in 2A related cases. My maieutic response is simple: What makes you/one believe that 2A relief will come from the 9th by staying together when it hasn't already?

As long as SCOTUS allows district courts and appeals courts to loosely formulate "heller-lite" opinions, there will not be any relief. Our only relief will come from national legislation or law of the land action from SCOTUS.

[MultiCaliber]

Well of course this should happen. Guys, the 9th isn't going to give us any favorable rulings that stand. That isn't going to change. Why do we want to drag free states that have no way of helping us out into the mud with us? CA judges having the loudest say in how laws are interpreted in free states is akin to the idiot politicians and robot voters from L.A., S.F. and S.D. controlling the rest of us. And we don't much like it, do we? Let them have a court that recognizes the constitution for what it was meant to be. If Trump gets to nominate the justices for a new 12th circuit, it has all the greater chance of being such a court. I hope this gets done within the next couple years.

[mit31]

I agree. Though a lot of current 9th judges would stay (since their chambers are in California), at least a few new ones would need to be appointed. (Someone smarter than I can probably do the math on that.)

"SEC. 6. Election of assignment of circuit judges.
(a) In general.—Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service and whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act—

(1) is in California, Oregon, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and

(2) subject to subsection (b), is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, or Washington shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.

(b) Election by certain circuit judges.—A circuit judge in regular active service as described in subsection (a)(2) may elect to be permanently assigned to the new ninth circuit as of such effective date by notifying the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election.

(c) Vacancies.—For each individual serving in the position of circuit judge of the former ninth circuit whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, or Washington after the date on which such individual ceases to serve as an active circuit judge, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional circuit judge for the twelfth circuit, without regard to whether such individual makes an election described in subsection (b)."

Regardless, even if the "new" 9th retains the same level of liberalism as today, the split is still worth it to us here, assuming that it does indeed speed up court responses. If the verdicts are the same, at least we can get them sooner and push on to SCOTUS.

Plus the obvious benefit to people living in the new 12th circuit, especially with this gem:

"SEC. 11. Precedent.
Precedent from the former ninth circuit shall not be binding on the twelfth circuit. Precedent from any circuit, including the former and new ninth circuits, shall be persuasive authority only."

Historically, we can look to when the 11th was split off from the 5th circuit.
PDF: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cg...text=lawreview
Even back in the late 70s/1980, there was argument to split the 9th. The issues that plagued the 5th (an entire enbanc court of 26 Justices, for example) are all apply to the 9th today.

The bill (PDF: now Public Law 96-452) that split the 5th into the 11th defined how to divide the Justices. All active Justices were assigned a circuit by their geographic location before the bill was signed ("bad" news for CA...) or, if senior status, allowed the Justices to choose a seat in either court.

I continue to push back on those that argue that splitting the 9th is bad all around, because it will affect "our" ability to reach favorable outcomes in 2A related cases. My maieutic response is simple: What makes you/one believe that 2A relief will come from the 9th by staying together when it hasn't already?

As long as SCOTUS allows district courts and appeals courts to loosely formulate "heller-lite" opinions, there will not be any relief. Our only relief will come from national legislation or law of the land action from SCOTUS.

[Ubermcoupe]

And there it is

I wasn't aware the text had been posted.

I agree. Though a lot of current 9th judges would stay (since their chambers are in California), at least a few new ones would need to be appointed. (Someone smarter than I can probably do the math on that.)



Regardless, even if the "new" 9th retains the same level of liberalism as today, the split is still worth it to us here, assuming that it does indeed speed up court responses. If the verdicts are the same, at least we can get them sooner and push on to SCOTUS.

Plus the obvious benefit to people living in the new 12th circuit, especially with this gem:

"SEC. 11. Precedent.
Precedent from the former ninth circuit shall not be binding on the twelfth circuit. Precedent from any circuit, including the former and new ninth circuits, shall be persuasive authority only."

[lowimpactuser]

The bill does not yet. But to get the 60 votes the dirty horse trading will get it amended to allow California, Hawaii, and Oregon based 9th District judges to stay in the Ninth. Since California represents the bulk of 9th district Judges, we'll get stuck with all these Progs further tilting the court to the left. Any chance to fix the make up of the 9th will be lost. The red state Senators are so disgusted with the blue state senators they just want to be rid of dealing with them.

Let's be clear. Jurisdictions, districts, etc. are EXACTLY analogous to what we are discussing here.

If so, then it makes sense to look at strategies/successes from this similarly situated equivalent.

That strategy is called "gerrymandering". Part of what makes gerryandering work is agreeing to give some opponents what they want, to advance the greater goal. It's been claimed that REDMAP, if you believe it was a strategic and far-seeing a conspiracy as critics say it is, NEEDED buy-in from black districts, because they created more majority-minority districts that increased the number of black elected representatives.

In addition to pushing hot-button issues like busing and welfare to appeal to white voters, Southern Republicans formed an “unholy alliance” with black Southern Democrats when it came to redistricting. In the 1980s and ’90s, when white Democrats ruled the Statehouses, Republicans supported new majority-minority districts for black Democrats in select urban and rural areas in exchange for an increased GOP presence elsewhere,

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-gop-resegregating-south/

(The Court has sometimes intervened in cases of racial gerrymandering, and it recently agreed to hear a challenge to the lines Republicans drew for Virginia’s House of Delegates. The suit alleges that the lines reduce the influence of minority voters by “packing” them into too few districts.)

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/ratfcked-the-influence-of-redistricting

Ergo, if we ARE scheming, then perhaps we should look at the results of what either is, or has the greatest correlation to a successful, time-tested scheme that will get us what we want.

In essence, we're already screwed in California. We've gerrymandered/ratf*cked AZ, NV, and other truly libertarian states into our circuit, and nullified those kinds of libertarian impulses. Colorado and New Mexico and Wyoming have been nerfed by Kansas and Oklahoma (and Utah, to some degree).

If we ACTUALLY create a LIBERTARIAN circuit- not some reddish, conservative place, but LIBERTARIAN- we might see cases like Norman SUCCEED, and cause a SPLIT.

California is screwed. Playing strategy AROUND California is the only way. Creating a LIBERTARIAN circuit is our greatest chance for circuit splits, and birthing a successful test case for limited government.

Restocking the 9th circuit won't be affected by redistricting. But setting pioneers free to have more chances of success only helps us, instead of dooming them to try to swim with the 10,000 pound iron California bloc to drag them down. A 170 pound swimmer doesn't slow our descent to the depths THAT much, but a swimmer going to get help actually has a chance of getting recovery divers. I'll take a chance at recovery divers over hoping a 170 swimmer slows our descent in any helpful way.

[ROMEOHOTEL]

Says who?

Once the court is split into 2+ districts, the Justices will likely be asked their preference for court assignment - probably based on their current geographic area (aka where they reside). The other "open" seats would filled via executive appointment.

Outside of the gun issue, there are stronger merits to break-up the 9th circuit - let alone keeping the 9th together so "we" can "win" some gun cases.

Short of CA/HI/AK succeeding from the US and physically reducing the size of the 9th circuit, it will be broken up. It's only a matter of time.

Judges appointed to the 9th are to the 9th. They would have to be reappointed to serve in a separate court.

Too, deciding by the preference of a judge is not a good idea. Shall judges appoint themselves? Rather, let appointment be as is now, by executive.

Also, I only count nine states within the 9th. Guam and the Marianas not being states.

[rp55]

One thing they should do is move the 9th Circuit out of San Francisco. Have the GSA auction the property on 7th Street, probably worth many millions, and use the proceeds to move the court to someplace like Fresno. The .gov would come out millions ahead and I'd bet most of the libtard jurists would not care to move out of San Francisco.

And while they're at it they can move the Federal Reserve bank out and score big bucks for that property as well. Trump needs to make a good example of some "sanctuary city" and SF could be just the ticket.

[Ubermcoupe]

Judges appointed to the 9th are to the 9th. They would have to be reappointed to serve in a separate court.

Too, deciding by the preference of a judge is not a good idea. Shall judges appoint themselves? Rather, let appointment be as is now, by executive.

Also, I only count nine states within the 9th. Guam and the Marianas not being states.

You are incorrect.

Mit31 posted the text of the bill in discussion and it clearly outlines how the justices will be "redistributed." This is the same process that the legislature took when separating the 11th from the 5th. However, given this is still debate and nowhere near hitting the presidents desk, that could change.

I agree. Though a lot of current 9th judges would stay (since their chambers are in California), at least a few new ones would need to be appointed. (Someone smarter than I can probably do the math on that.)

"SEC. 6. Election of assignment of circuit judges.
(a) In general.—Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service and whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act—

(1) is in California, Oregon, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and

(2) subject to subsection (b), is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, or Washington shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.

(b) Election by certain circuit judges.—A circuit judge in regular active service as described in subsection (a)(2) may elect to be permanently assigned to the new ninth circuit as of such effective date by notifying the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election.

(c) Vacancies.—For each individual serving in the position of circuit judge of the former ninth circuit whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, or Washington after the date on which such individual ceases to serve as an active circuit judge, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional circuit judge for the twelfth circuit, without regard to whether such individual makes an election described in subsection (b)."

Regardless, even if the "new" 9th retains the same level of liberalism as today, the split is still worth it to us here, assuming that it does indeed speed up court responses. If the verdicts are the same, at least we can get them sooner and push on to SCOTUS.

Plus the obvious benefit to people living in the new 12th circuit, especially with this gem:

"SEC. 11. Precedent.
Precedent from the former ninth circuit shall not be binding on the twelfth circuit. Precedent from any circuit, including the former and new ninth circuits, shall be persuasive authority only."

[chris]

It's become clearer and clearer to me there is no benefit to backing democratic positions on anything in California. Even IF I agree with particular issues, until they've been knocked down a bit, they have NO reason to come to the table. There is nothing to gain, especially as the statist bug has bit the democrats- not just "democratic" ideas, which USED to have some libertarian ones, but statist democrat positions. No thanks.

It's amazing as I see this dynamic play out I can't find the fault with it, after years of thinking that kind of thinking was too narrow.

I agree. I pretty much hate Democrats. As they are the party responsible for destroying this state.