| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Sep 2003 03:32:07 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over turned,
:|then the rate of being overturned is 80%. That is what I am saying. That is
:|what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the time. They
:|are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion is, how
:|often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed, these
:|are two remarkably different things.
Here jeffy:
A piece of advice jeffy:
Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
which is far from being simplistic.
From: "Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:14:32 GMT
[He was replying to another, a bona fide troll. A lot like you jeffy, but
in this case it wasn't you.]
My facts are right you ignorant fucking retard. Do you have any idea how
the courts work? There are 12 members of the appeals court and only three
decide each case unless an en banc appeal is made. That means three cases
are decided every day, which is considerably less than what the Supreme
Court judges on average. On top of that, in another post, you assumed a
response that was even greater than the response you challenged. You're not
even smart enough to be consistent from one post to another.
Do us all a favor and the next time you reply to something you know nothing
about, don't.
You fucking dumbass *****.
For your enjoyment:
9th Circuit Court handles the most cases, criticism
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 1, 2002 12:00 AM
For years, it has been the court that conservatives loved to hate.
Now, by declaring that God doesn't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has invited equal-opportunity loathing
from believers right and left.
Yet the "left coast," "out of control," "wacko," "what are they smoking out
there?" court also makes thousands of decisions every year that by any
stretch can't be considered "far out."
The 9th is a study in superlatives and contrasts.
After weeding out about half of the appeals it receives as not worthy of
deliberations, it adjudicates the most cases of any of the 12 regional
circuits in the nation: about 5,000 a year, or more than four other
circuits combined.
The 9th Circuit covers the largest territory: nine states and the U.S.
possessions in the Pacific, with a total population of 55 million.
It has the largest bench, authorized at 28 active judges, with 24 of the
seats filled. It also has 22 senior, or semiretired, judges who could
retire at full pay but largely continue to hear cases.
Most of all, the 9th is widely labeled the most liberal appellate court in
the nation and the one with the most cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
With that record, the court has long been on trial itself in the political
arena and the court of public opinion.
Todd Gaziano, director of legal and judicial studies for the conservative
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., sums up the right's verdict: "The
9th is the worst . . . a sort of lawless land."
Only a tiny proportion of Circuit Court cases is accepted for review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, but the 9th Circuit's record of being slapped down in
80 percent of those appeals is proof that its left-leaning judges have
abandoned both the U.S. Constitution and common sense, critics contend.
That assertion disregards thousands of cases in which decisions have little
or no discernible ideology, defenders respond. Nearly all Circuit Court
cases are heard and decided by panels of three judges, they say, and to
label the entire court "lawless" exaggerates complaints that stem from a
few rulings or individual judges.
Most-reversed circuit
Statistics don't mark the 9th as particularly defective.
Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent.
All courts have reversals, but the volume of cases they handle is important
for context.
George said that of the nearly 83,000 cases decided by the Circuit Courts
on the basis of hearings or briefs, the Supreme Court accepted only 186, or
scarcely 0.2 percent, for review.
The high court's reversal or return of 119 cases constituted fewer than 1.5
reversals per 1,000 circuit decisions.
For the 9th Circuit, the ratio was 2.5 per 1,000. But the Chicago-based 7th
Circuit, with eight judges appointed by Republicans and three by Democrats,
had virtually the same ratio.
"People looking at reversal rates need to remember that the base line is
not 50 percent," said Stephen E. Wasby, professor emeritus of political
science at the Albany campus of State University of New York.
The Supreme Court is most likely to review cases it thinks may have been
decided wrongly, so the court normally overturns about two of every three
cases, Wasby said.
Sources of controversy
One reason the 9th is so controversial, many observers agree, is that it is
more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal
pioneering in a rapidly changing society.
Topics spanning adult entertainment, Internet free speech, copyright
infringement in cyberspace, water disputes, immigration law and Indian
sovereignty do not arise so often in other regions.
But criminal law, common to all courts, is one focus of criticism of the
San Francisco-based court.
An example of the 9th's criminal-coddling tendencies, critics charge, was
its 2-1 ruling that a convict should be allowed to send sperm to his wife
from prison. Preventing him from procreating is cruel and unusual
punishment and therefore unconstitutional, judges said.
Defenders point out, however, that the Circuit Court reversed the decision
itself in one of its rare 11-judge en banc rehearings. Other circuits err,
too
The 9th Circuit has no exclusive claim to decisions denounced as wacky.
In the Republican-dominated 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, a
tough-on-crime panel upheld a death sentence for a man whose attorney had
fallen asleep repeatedly at the defense table. That decision, too, was
reversed within the same circuit.
The Supreme Court sometimes disagrees as harshly with a conservative
circuit as it does with the 9th.
The 5th Circuit ruled that a mentally retarded man could be executed for
murder, but the higher court disagreed, 6-3.
Similarly, when the conservative 4th Circuit found reason to undo the
three-decade practice of advising a suspect of his rights, the Supreme
Court reversed, 7-2.
For many, especially parents, the 9th was too protective of free speech
when it ruled that a law against "virtual pornography" was
unconstitutionally vague in making it a crime to circulate material that
"appears to be" sexual images of minors or gives that "impression."
But the Supreme Court backed the decision.
What's 'liberal'?
Even as an ideological battle about "conservative" vs. "liberal" judges
escalates on Main Street and in Congress, the distinctions are becoming
less and less meaningful, in some experts' views.
George said that two other circuits in recent years have not been branded
particularly liberal despite having a slightly higher percentage of
Democratic appointees than the 9th.
"Classifications are breaking down," said Arthur D. Hellman, law professor
at the University of Pittsburgh and a former director of the 9th Circuit's
legal staff.
"Judicial issues are more complex than the simple labels we attach to
them," he said. "You have to talk about each case specifically."
Hellman cited as an example the 9th Circuit's ruling that a virulent
anti-abortion Web site was illegally posing a threat to abortion doctors.
One side of the court took the nominally liberal position that the site
constituted free speech, while the other succeeded in giving protection to
doctors whose practices are anathema to conservatives.
"Which is the liberal position?" Hellman asked.
The alignment of judges on the issue is no help. Two who are considered at
opposite ends of the ideological spectrum agreed this time on the side of
free speech, which lost.
Question of balance
When it comes to U.S. Senate confirmation of judicial appointments, neither
the presumed ideological leanings of nominees nor the party of the
appointing president is a reliable predictor of how a judge will rule in
coming years, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
No fan of the 9th Circuit bench, Kyl nonetheless said he and other
Republicans believe that trying to impose some sort of ideological
"balance" on the 9th or any other court would be futile. Sen. Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y., has argued otherwise. Kyl said, "Presidents ought to be
able to nominate judges they truly want, as long as a nominee's competence
and honesty are not in question. . . . Judges are not easily pigeonholed by
their presumed political affiliations."
He pointed to four controversial decisions in which judges ruled the
opposite of what their backgrounds suggested.
Among the four, the Pledge case, now under reconsideration, offers the
greatest ironies. Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the opinion, is the son of a
Baptist minister, is active in the Presbyterian Church and was appointed by
Richard Nixon.
"He is not the village atheist," Wasby said.
Judicial activism
To see judges as political operatives trying to impose their own social
agenda discredits their integrity and expertise, said Mary Schroeder, chief
judge of the 9th Circuit.
Schroeder, who presides over the far-flung circuit from Phoenix, said
judges are not pursuing personal or political agendas.
"Judges usually come to the bench from backgrounds of strong advocacy and,
often, partisan activism," she said. "When they put on that robe, they
leave those at the courthouse door."
Judges recognize, and must allow for, how their own experiences shape their
concepts of fairness and logic, Schroeder said.
"Someone who has been a schoolteacher . . . is going to have a different
perspective on some issues," she said. "And, certainly, a member of a
minority group will have experiences and an outlook very different from
that of the average White male."
:|
:|>
:|
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 08:26:36 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n1numvc0duukg1e09mqp5g2u258afvl7pm@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over
turned,
:|then the rate of being overturned is 80%. That is what I am saying.
That is
:|what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the time.
They
:|are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion
is, how
:|often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed,
these
:|are two remarkably different things.
Here jeffy:
A piece of advice jeffy:
Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
which is far from being simplistic.
The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals, and
of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
that go to appeal. The real number is 83.333% of appeals get overturned.
When other courts in the nation are overturned at a rate of 4 or 5 per every
10 that are appealed, then the 9th is overturned at a higher rate. It is
simple math, and nothing you say will change that. I do not pretend that all
of the other courts are overturned at the rate of 4 or 5 per 10 cases, I
only use this figure as an example of what they might be overturned at and
still be overturned less than the 9th is overturned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 09:36:41 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vmv8ecinfr8uc3@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n1numvc0duukg1e09mqp5g2u258afvl7pm@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over
turned,
:|then the rate of being overturned is 80%. That is what I am saying.
That is
:|what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the
time.
They
:|are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion
is, how
:|often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed,
these
:|are two remarkably different things.
Here jeffy:
A piece of advice jeffy:
Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
which is far from being simplistic.
The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals,
and
of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
that go to appeal.
Are you such a freaking idiot? If the court had one case ACCEPTED (a word
you conveniently forget to include) for appeal and it gets overturned, you'd
be here complaing how they got overturned 100% of the time? You are an
ignorant *****.
The real number is 83.333% of appeals get overturned.
When other courts in the nation are overturned at a rate of 4 or 5 per
every
10 that are appealed, then the 9th is overturned at a higher rate. It is
simple math, and nothing you say will change that. I do not pretend that
all
of the other courts are overturned at the rate of 4 or 5 per 10 cases, I
only use this figure as an example of what they might be overturned at and
still be overturned less than the 9th is overturned.
You have been given the figures and you still come back like you have never
seen them. The rates at which the other courts are overturned are not much
different, and in one case are the same. The idea that the ninth is
overturned more is nothing but selective fact mining. You don't have a case
and you are an ignorant *****.
Case dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 03:29:29 AM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|news:vmv8ecinfr8uc3@corp.supernews.com...
:|>
:|> <buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|> news:n1numvc0duukg1e09mqp5g2u258afvl7pm@4ax.com...
:|> > "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|> >
:|> > >:|If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over
:|> turned,
:|> > >:|then the rate of being overturned is 80%. That is what I am saying.
:|> That is
:|> > >:|what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the
:|time.
:|> They
:|> > >:|are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion
:|> is, how
:|> > >:|often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed,
:|> these
:|> > >:|are two remarkably different things.
:|> >
:|> > Here jeffy:
:|> > A piece of advice jeffy:
:|> >
:|> > Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
:|> > which is far from being simplistic.
:|> >
:|>
:|>
:|> The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals,
:|and
:|> of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
:|> that go to appeal.
:|
:|Are you such a freaking idiot? If the court had one case ACCEPTED (a word
:|you conveniently forget to include) for appeal and it gets overturned, you'd
:|be here complaing how they got overturned 100% of the time? You are an
:|ignorant *****.
:|
That is jeffy, that is his style.
He is an idiot, and a troll.
Facts, truth, etc are of no concern to him
He is opinionated and proud of it.
The fact that he is uninformed is of no concern to him. The fact that there
are lots of opinionated but uninformed fools in the world, himself included
is of no concern to him.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saint Poopy-pants " |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go poopie |
23 Sep 2003 04:05:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote:
:|"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|news:vmv8ecinfr8uc3@corp.supernews.com...
:|>
:|> < > wrote in message
:|> news:n1numvc0duukg1e09mqp5g2u258afvl7pm@4ax.com...
:|> > "Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|> >
:|> > >:|If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over
:|> turned,
:|> > >:|then the rate of being overturned is 80%. That is what I am saying.
:|> That is
:|> > >:|what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the
:|time.
:|> They
:|> > >:|are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion
:|> is, how
:|> > >:|often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed,
:|> these
:|> > >:|are two remarkably different things.
:|> >
:|> > Here jeffy:
:|> > A piece of advice jeffy:
:|> >
:|> > Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
:|> > which is far from being simplistic.
:|> >
:|>
:|>
:|> The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals,
:|and
:|> of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
:|> that go to appeal.
:|
:|Are you such a freaking idiot? If the court had one case ACCEPTED (a word
:|you conveniently forget to include) for appeal and it gets overturned, you'd
:|be here complaing how they got overturned 100% of the time? You are an
:|ignorant *****.
:|
That is jeffy, that is his style.
He is an idiot, and a troll.
Facts, truth, etc are of no concern to him
He is opinionated and proud of it.
The fact that he is uninformed is of no concern to him. The fact that there
are lots of opinionated but uninformed fools in the world, himself included
is of no concern to him.
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland.
No poop here. Just ***** and vinegar. LOL. Oops...I just made a big
poopie pants mess again.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 11:51:47 AM |
|
|
None of what you said changes the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
is overturned at a higher rate than every other circuit court in the nation.
Get over it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
24 Sep 2003 06:04:48 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|None of what you said changes the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
:|is overturned at a higher rate than every other circuit court in the nation.
:|Get over it.
The evidence that has been presented by others, some of which I re posted
to you puts it in context jeffy. Something that is totally alien to you,
and when put in context dippy, it shows your flawed claims are just that,
flawed and basically irrelevant.
But I don't really expect you to grasp and understand that, it is beyond
your mental abilities to do so.
Now, you can get over it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 08:25:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:51:47 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
None of what you said changes the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
is overturned at a higher rate than every other circuit court in the nation.
Get over it.
Except it's NOT.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
24 Sep 2003 11:40:37 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.24.01.25.18.231091@eac.org...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:51:47 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
None of what you said changes the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals
is overturned at a higher rate than every other circuit court in the
nation.
Get over it.
Except it's NOT.
Name ONE circuit court that has an equal or higher rate of overturn. Go
ahead ...
Remember, the definition of Rate of Overturn is the number of appeas that
are reversed/number of appeals. This number has nothing to do with the
number of cases heard by the 9th, and it has nothing to do with the number
of cases that the 9th itself reverses. It is the number of cases from the
9th that get to the supreme court, and that the supreme court overturns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 12:13:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
:|news:pan.2003.09.24.01.25.18.231091@eac.org...
:|> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 09:51:47 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
:|>
:|> > None of what you said changes the fact that the 9th Circuit Court of
:|Appeals
:|> > is overturned at a higher rate than every other circuit court in the
:|nation.
:|> > Get over it.
:|>
:|> Except it's NOT.
:|>
:|
:|
:|Name ONE circuit court that has an equal or higher rate of overturn. Go
:|ahead ...
Dear Jeffy.
This has no meaning to anyone but you and those others like you who want to
try and make this non-issue a issue.
People keep posting the information that shows why it is a non-issue, but
you reject that so you can continue posting your misrepresenting crap,
trying so very hard to make it mean something profound why even denying you
are doing that.
LOL
You ***** about the 9th Circuit when it rules for Newdow in the pledge case
but you don't utter a peep when it rules in favor of a guy who wants the
government to pay for his studying to be a minister.
You are so transparent.
You comments about the 9th are meaningless without the entire context which
you want left out.
You are like the employer who bitches because a employee dripped blood on
the employee restroom floor. While you work very hard trying to keep out
all the information that places it in context, such as the fact he was
dripping blood on the restroom floor because a machine in your factory had
ripped off his hand. He dripped blood on that floor because other employees
had rushed him into that restroom as they tried to stem the blood loss as
they waited the arrival of the ambulance.
All of that is important and relevant to fully understanding the blood on
the restroom floor.
Just as all the facts that people keep posting, but you don't want to have
to deal with, is important to fully understanding this whole circuit court
situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thecaldwells" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 06:53:27 PM |
|
|
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
-Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 09:43:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, "thecaldwells"
<thecaldwells@cox.net> in news message
<QdLcb.18283$sp2.15102@lakeread04> wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
http://www.uscourts.gov/faq.html
Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court
judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United
States Senate, as stated in the Constitution. The names of potential
nominees often are recommended by senators or sometimes members of the
House who are of the President's political party. The Senate Judiciary
Committee typically conducts confirmation hearings for each nominee.
Article III of the Constitution states that these judicial officers
are appointed for a life term.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 10:45:45 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote
(in message <QdLcb.18283$sp2.15102@lakeread04>):
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
-Richard
"voted out"?
[Cary, this is one of you and yourins.]
You mean "impeached", I hope. Please tell us that you meant "impeached"! If
you actually meant "voted out", the State of Arizona should sue to get your
salary back.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
28 Sep 2003 01:43:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
cs:
Yes, you can use what ever excuse, whatever lame excuse you choose to
use when using what you claim is a legitimate debating tactic--threatening
to quit the discussion because of something you don't like.< <
It's up to you. Entirely up to you.
You have even said that it is OK for me to say your arguments "are
narrow minded, that I'm oblivious. ..."
You apparently think that is civility.
I don't.
So, you see, civility is in the eye of the beholder.
Now, can you give me a straight yes or no answer? Do you believe
that demanding civility is a lame excuse to end a discussion? I'll tell
you right now why you didn't answer the question because you don't
believe it's a lame excuse, but you'd rather dance around rather than
admit that I am right about something.< < <
This discussion is just another lame excuse to withdraw from a
discussion, from which you apparently seem unable to extracate yourself.<
<
I think that threatening to quit on whatever pretense is a lame
discussion technique. Definitely not a legitimate debate tactic, which you claim
it is.< <
What to quit? Use whatever lame excuse you would like to use.
No one is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do.
So if I started constantly referring to you as a fucking smelly *****,
you'd have no problem continuing the discussion?
Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame debating
technique you want to use.
Don't be surprised when folks start asking how you would know.
If you are compelled to use such terms and such debating technique, it is
not my job to police your posting morality and your debating ethics.
Any insight on your character you would like to share would be most
entertaining, I am sure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: New thread: Buckeroo reveals his character; was: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
29 Sep 2003 10:55:03 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
cs
I think that threatening to quit on whatever pretense is a lame
discussion technique. Definitely not a legitimate debate tactic, which
you claim it is.< < < <
Please don't dodge the question:
Please don't snip my reply.
I think that threatening to quit on whatever pretense is a
lame discussion technique. Definitely not a legitimate debate tactic,
which you claim it is.< < < < < < <
Please don't dodge the question:
Please don't snip my reply.
So if I started constantly referring to you as a fucking smelly
*****, you'd have no problem continuing the discussion? < < <
Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.<
<< I don't believe you. So pick a topic and I'll start using every
obscenity in the book and we'll see how long you last. >>
cs:
"Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.
"Don't be surprised when folks start asking how you would know.
"If you are compelled to use such terms and such debating technique, it is
not my job to police your posting morality and your debating ethics.
"Any insight on your character you would like to share would be most
entertaining, I am sure. "
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: New thread: Buckeroo reveals his character; was: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
29 Sep 2003 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
Larry Smith wrote:
"Buckaroo Bozo" <arsehole34@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dfYdb.33866$pP6.4119@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
[...]
Is that a symbol for HOT AIR?
Perhaps you missed this HOT AIR:
<< I don't believe you. So pick a topic and I'll start using every
obscenity in the book and we'll see how long you last. >>
Quelle anticipation!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cs:
"Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.
"Don't be surprised when folks start asking how you would know.
"If you are compelled to use such terms and such debating technique, it is
not my job to police your posting morality and your debating ethics.
"Any insight on your character you would like to share would be most
entertaining, I am sure. "
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: New thread: Buckeroo reveals his character; was: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
30 Sep 2003 03:17:20 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2003 19:27:00 GMTBuckaroo "blackhole" Banzai
<blackhole34@yahoo.com>
cs> > Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.
b.b.h.b.> I don't believe you. So pick a topic and I'll start using every
obscenity
in the book and we'll see how long you last.
b.b.h.b: <<Thank you Carol, for proving my point. >>
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Buckaroo Banzai wrote:
b.b.h.b.
So if I started constantly referring to you as a fucking smelly
*****, you'd have no problem continuing the discussion? < < <
cs:
Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.<
<< I don't believe you. So pick a topic and I'll start using every
obscenity in the book and we'll see how long you last. >>
cs:
"Hey. "Use whatever lame excuse you want" includes using any lame
debating technique you want to use.
"Don't be surprised when folks start asking how you would know.
"If you are compelled to use such terms and such debating technique, it is
not my job to police your posting morality and your debating ethics.
"Any insight on your character you would like to share would be most
entertaining, I am sure. "
THANKS FOR PROVING MINE.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 07:08:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
Voted out?
VOTED OUT?
Sigh...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 07:24:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
Voted out?
VOTED OUT?
Sigh...
Isn't it incredible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 07:40:56 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:24:38 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
Voted out?
VOTED OUT?
Sigh...
Isn't it incredible?
Words fail...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Fair and Balanced Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
25 Sep 2003 11:12:44 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:40:56 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:24:38 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
Voted out?
VOTED OUT?
Sigh...
Isn't it incredible?
Words fail...
Apparently San Francisco makes up some 35% of the land area of the
United States. It doesn't seem that big when you go through on the
101...
-
'A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is
very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle
over expenditures on armaments and military equipment. It pays
without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing
for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic
terrors are an abundant source of gain.'
Anatole France
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
26 Sep 2003 08:03:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 21:12:44 -0700, The Fair and Balanced Weasel wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:40:56 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 19:24:38 -0500, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:53:27 -0500, thecaldwells wrote:
Yes, having suffered under the 9th circuit while working for the state of
Arizona, I wish they were gone but they tend to represent SanFran pretty
well and probably won't get voted out.
Voted out?
VOTED OUT?
Sigh...
Isn't it incredible?
Words fail...
Apparently San Francisco makes up some 35% of the land area of the
United States. It doesn't seem that big when you go through on the
101...
Except during rush hour?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 06:00:18 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals, and
:|of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
:|that go to appeal. The real number is 83.333% of appeals get overturned.
:|When other courts in the nation are overturned at a rate of 4 or 5 per every
:|10 that are appealed, then the 9th is overturned at a higher rate. It is
:|simple math, and nothing you say will change that. I do not pretend that all
:|of the other courts are overturned at the rate of 4 or 5 per 10 cases, I
:|only use this figure as an example of what they might be overturned at and
:|still be overturned less than the 9th is overturned.
:|
Maybe you can understand this this time dummy, though i doubt it seriously
Think context, I know that will make your fragile head hurt but that is a
price one pays for the things you have done to your brain.
However, if you want the shortcut version and be spared a headache and
learning anything here is the shortcut version:
YOUR POSITION IS FLAWED.
But you will never understand that and you will continue to troll that
flawed position, unless you get your headache reading the following and
UNDERSTAND THAT CONTEXT.
Here jeffy:
A piece of advice jeffy:
Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
which is far from being simplistic.
From: "Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:14:32 GMT
[He was replying to another, a bona fide troll. A lot like you jeffy, but
in this case it wasn't you.]
My facts are right you ignorant fucking retard. Do you have any idea how
the courts work? There are 12 members of the appeals court and only three
decide each case unless an en banc appeal is made. That means three cases
are decided every day, which is considerably less than what the Supreme
Court judges on average. On top of that, in another post, you assumed a
response that was even greater than the response you challenged. You're not
even smart enough to be consistent from one post to another.
Do us all a favor and the next time you reply to something you know nothing
about, don't.
You fucking dumbass *****.
For your enjoyment:
9th Circuit Court handles the most cases, criticism
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 1, 2002 12:00 AM
For years, it has been the court that conservatives loved to hate.
Now, by declaring that God doesn't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has invited equal-opportunity loathing
from believers right and left.
Yet the "left coast," "out of control," "wacko," "what are they smoking out
there?" court also makes thousands of decisions every year that by any
stretch can't be considered "far out."
The 9th is a study in superlatives and contrasts.
After weeding out about half of the appeals it receives as not worthy of
deliberations, it adjudicates the most cases of any of the 12 regional
circuits in the nation: about 5,000 a year, or more than four other
circuits combined.
The 9th Circuit covers the largest territory: nine states and the U.S.
possessions in the Pacific, with a total population of 55 million.
It has the largest bench, authorized at 28 active judges, with 24 of the
seats filled. It also has 22 senior, or semiretired, judges who could
retire at full pay but largely continue to hear cases.
Most of all, the 9th is widely labeled the most liberal appellate court in
the nation and the one with the most cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
With that record, the court has long been on trial itself in the political
arena and the court of public opinion.
Todd Gaziano, director of legal and judicial studies for the conservative
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., sums up the right's verdict: "The
9th is the worst . . . a sort of lawless land."
Only a tiny proportion of Circuit Court cases is accepted for review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, but the 9th Circuit's record of being slapped down in
80 percent of those appeals is proof that its left-leaning judges have
abandoned both the U.S. Constitution and common sense, critics contend.
That assertion disregards thousands of cases in which decisions have little
or no discernible ideology, defenders respond. Nearly all Circuit Court
cases are heard and decided by panels of three judges, they say, and to
label the entire court "lawless" exaggerates complaints that stem from a
few rulings or individual judges.
Most-reversed circuit
Statistics don't mark the 9th as particularly defective.
Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent.
All courts have reversals, but the volume of cases they handle is important
for context.
George said that of the nearly 83,000 cases decided by the Circuit Courts
on the basis of hearings or briefs, the Supreme Court accepted only 186, or
scarcely 0.2 percent, for review.
The high court's reversal or return of 119 cases constituted fewer than 1.5
reversals per 1,000 circuit decisions.
For the 9th Circuit, the ratio was 2.5 per 1,000. But the Chicago-based 7th
Circuit, with eight judges appointed by Republicans and three by Democrats,
had virtually the same ratio.
"People looking at reversal rates need to remember that the base line is
not 50 percent," said Stephen E. Wasby, professor emeritus of political
science at the Albany campus of State University of New York.
The Supreme Court is most likely to review cases it thinks may have been
decided wrongly, so the court normally overturns about two of every three
cases, Wasby said.
Sources of controversy
One reason the 9th is so controversial, many observers agree, is that it is
more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal
pioneering in a rapidly changing society.
Topics spanning adult entertainment, Internet free speech, copyright
infringement in cyberspace, water disputes, immigration law and Indian
sovereignty do not arise so often in other regions.
But criminal law, common to all courts, is one focus of criticism of the
San Francisco-based court.
An example of the 9th's criminal-coddling tendencies, critics charge, was
its 2-1 ruling that a convict should be allowed to send sperm to his wife
from prison. Preventing him from procreating is cruel and unusual
punishment and therefore unconstitutional, judges said.
Defenders point out, however, that the Circuit Court reversed the decision
itself in one of its rare 11-judge en banc rehearings. Other circuits err,
too
The 9th Circuit has no exclusive claim to decisions denounced as wacky.
In the Republican-dominated 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, a
tough-on-crime panel upheld a death sentence for a man whose attorney had
fallen asleep repeatedly at the defense table. That decision, too, was
reversed within the same circuit.
The Supreme Court sometimes disagrees as harshly with a conservative
circuit as it does with the 9th.
The 5th Circuit ruled that a mentally retarded man could be executed for
murder, but the higher court disagreed, 6-3.
Similarly, when the conservative 4th Circuit found reason to undo the
three-decade practice of advising a suspect of his rights, the Supreme
Court reversed, 7-2.
For many, especially parents, the 9th was too protective of free speech
when it ruled that a law against "virtual pornography" was
unconstitutionally vague in making it a crime to circulate material that
"appears to be" sexual images of minors or gives that "impression."
But the Supreme Court backed the decision.
What's 'liberal'?
Even as an ideological battle about "conservative" vs. "liberal" judges
escalates on Main Street and in Congress, the distinctions are becoming
less and less meaningful, in some experts' views.
George said that two other circuits in recent years have not been branded
particularly liberal despite having a slightly higher percentage of
Democratic appointees than the 9th.
"Classifications are breaking down," said Arthur D. Hellman, law professor
at the University of Pittsburgh and a former director of the 9th Circuit's
legal staff.
"Judicial issues are more complex than the simple labels we attach to
them," he said. "You have to talk about each case specifically."
Hellman cited as an example the 9th Circuit's ruling that a virulent
anti-abortion Web site was illegally posing a threat to abortion doctors.
One side of the court took the nominally liberal position that the site
constituted free speech, while the other succeeded in giving protection to
doctors whose practices are anathema to conservatives.
"Which is the liberal position?" Hellman asked.
The alignment of judges on the issue is no help. Two who are considered at
opposite ends of the ideological spectrum agreed this time on the side of
free speech, which lost.
Question of balance
When it comes to U.S. Senate confirmation of judicial appointments, neither
the presumed ideological leanings of nominees nor the party of the
appointing president is a reliable predictor of how a judge will rule in
coming years, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
No fan of the 9th Circuit bench, Kyl nonetheless said he and other
Republicans believe that trying to impose some sort of ideological
"balance" on the 9th or any other court would be futile. Sen. Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y., has argued otherwise. Kyl said, "Presidents ought to be
able to nominate judges they truly want, as long as a nominee's competence
and honesty are not in question. . . . Judges are not easily pigeonholed by
their presumed political affiliations."
He pointed to four controversial decisions in which judges ruled the
opposite of what their backgrounds suggested.
Among the four, the Pledge case, now under reconsideration, offers the
greatest ironies. Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the opinion, is the son of a
Baptist minister, is active in the Presbyterian Church and was appointed by
Richard Nixon.
"He is not the village atheist," Wasby said.
Judicial activism
To see judges as political operatives trying to impose their own social
agenda discredits their integrity and expertise, said Mary Schroeder, chief
judge of the 9th Circuit.
Schroeder, who presides over the far-flung circuit from Phoenix, said
judges are not pursuing personal or political agendas.
"Judges usually come to the bench from backgrounds of strong advocacy and,
often, partisan activism," she said. "When they put on that robe, they
leave those at the courthouse door."
Judges recognize, and must allow for, how their own experiences shape their
concepts of fairness and logic, Schroeder said.
"Someone who has been a schoolteacher . . . is going to have a different
perspective on some issues," she said. "And, certainly, a member of a
minority group will have experiences and an outlook very different from
that of the average White male."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 09:03:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:26:36 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vmv8ecinfr8uc3@corp.supernews.com>):
The math is the same. If there are 12 decisions that result in appeals, and
of those 12, 10 are overturned, the court is reversed in 80% of its cases
that go to appeal. The real number is 83.333%
Very good. With the help of those on alt.education, we'll get you up to
seventh grade level in just five or six years (if you study 18 hours a day).
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
of appeals get overturned.
When other courts in the nation are overturned at a rate of 4 or 5 per every
10 that are appealed, then the 9th is overturned at a higher rate. It is
simple math, and nothing you say will change that. I do not pretend that all
of the other courts are overturned at the rate of 4 or 5 per 10 cases, I
only use this figure as an example of what they might be overturned at and
still be overturned less than the 9th is overturned.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 06:02:24 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over turned,
then the rate of being overturned is 80%.
Nope.
That is what I am saying. That is
what everybody is saying. Nobody said the 9th is wrong 80% of the time. They
are wrong now, just like the other 9 out of 12 times. The discussion is, how
often are they overturned on appeal, not how much are they appealed, these
are two remarkably different things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 08:43:50 PM |
|
|
"Gray Shockley" <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB94E9B0000BF6B315AB7D40@news-south.giganews.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over turned,
then the rate of being overturned is 80%.
Nope.
Nope?
How can you say that? If there are 12 appeals, and of those 12, 10 are
overturned, then the math is 10/12, or .833333% (83%).
You can argue all day long that they even have 12 appeals, or that 10 of
them are overturned, but the operative word here is "IF". If they are
appealed 12 times, and overturned 10 of those times, they are overturned 83%
of the time. Period.
The actual reports say they are overturned variously between 75% and 85% of
the time. Most of the other circuit courts have overturn rates that are much
lower, but it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the 9th has the
highest rate of being overturned of any of the other circuit courts. We can
discuss why this might be important, but there is no dispute, except by you,
that the 9th is overturned at a much higher rate than the other circuit
courts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
22 Sep 2003 09:41:40 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vmv9sdqvpcic56@corp.supernews.com...
"Gray Shockley" <gray-11@cybercoffee.org> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BB94E9B0000BF6B315AB7D40@news-south.giganews.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
If they get appealed 12 times, and of those appeals, 10 are over
turned,
then the rate of being overturned is 80%.
Nope.
Nope?
How can you say that? If there are 12 appeals, and of those 12, 10 are
overturned, then the math is 10/12, or .833333% (83%).
You can argue all day long that they even have 12 appeals, or that 10 of
them are overturned, but the operative word here is "IF". If they are
appealed 12 times, and overturned 10 of those times, they are overturned
83%
of the time. Period.
The actual reports say they are overturned variously between 75% and 85%
of
the time. Most of the other circuit courts have overturn rates that are
much
lower, but it doesn't really matter.
It doesn't matter to you because you chose to ignore the truth. I'll include
it again, you fucking moron:
From a conservative newspaper from the ninth district. Read it and weep.
9th Circuit Court handles the most cases, criticism
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 1, 2002 12:00 AM
For years, it has been the court that conservatives loved to hate.
Now, by declaring that God doesn't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has invited equal-opportunity loathing
from believers right and left.
Yet the "left coast," "out of control," "wacko," "what are they smoking out
there?" court also makes thousands of decisions every year that by any
stretch can't be considered "far out."
The 9th is a study in superlatives and contrasts.
After weeding out about half of the appeals it receives as not worthy of
deliberations, it adjudicates the most cases of any of the 12 regional
circuits in the nation: about 5,000 a year, or more than four other circuits
combined.
The 9th Circuit covers the largest territory: nine states and the U.S.
possessions in the Pacific, with a total population of 55 million.
It has the largest bench, authorized at 28 active judges, with 24 of the
seats filled. It also has 22 senior, or semiretired, judges who could retire
at full pay but largely continue to hear cases.
Most of all, the 9th is widely labeled the most liberal appellate court in
the nation and the one with the most cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
With that record, the court has long been on trial itself in the political
arena and the court of public opinion.
Todd Gaziano, director of legal and judicial studies for the conservative
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., sums up the right's verdict: "The
9th is the worst . . . a sort of lawless land."
Only a tiny proportion of Circuit Court cases is accepted for review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, but the 9th Circuit's record of being slapped down in 80
percent of those appeals is proof that its left-leaning judges have
abandoned both the U.S. Constitution and common sense, critics contend.
That assertion disregards thousands of cases in which decisions have little
or no discernible ideology, defenders respond. Nearly all Circuit Court
cases are heard and decided by panels of three judges, they say, and to
label the entire court "lawless" exaggerates complaints that stem from a few
rulings or individual judges.
Most-reversed circuit
Statistics don't mark the 9th as particularly defective.
Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent.
All courts have reversals, but the volume of cases they handle is important
for context.
George said that of the nearly 83,000 cases decided by the Circuit Courts on
the basis of hearings or briefs, the Supreme Court accepted only 186, or
scarcely 0.2 percent, for review.
The high court's reversal or return of 119 cases constituted fewer than 1.5
reversals per 1,000 circuit decisions.
For the 9th Circuit, the ratio was 2.5 per 1,000. But the Chicago-based 7th
Circuit, with eight judges appointed by Republicans and three by Democrats,
had virtually the same ratio.
"People looking at reversal rates need to remember that the base line is not
50 percent," said Stephen E. Wasby, professor emeritus of political science
at the Albany campus of State University of New York.
The Supreme Court is most likely to review cases it thinks may have been
decided wrongly, so the court normally overturns about two of every three
cases, Wasby said.
Sources of controversy
One reason the 9th is so controversial, many observers agree, is that it is
more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal
pioneering in a rapidly changing society.
Topics spanning adult entertainment, Internet free speech, copyright
infringement in cyberspace, water disputes, immigration law and Indian
sovereignty do not arise so often in other regions.
But criminal law, common to all courts, is one focus of criticism of the San
Francisco-based court.
An example of the 9th's criminal-coddling tendencies, critics charge, was
its 2-1 ruling that a convict should be allowed to send sperm to his wife
from prison. Preventing him from procreating is cruel and unusual punishment
and therefore unconstitutional, judges said.
Defenders point out, however, that the Circuit Court reversed the decision
itself in one of its rare 11-judge en banc rehearings.
Other circuits err, too
The 9th Circuit has no exclusive claim to decisions denounced as wacky.
In the Republican-dominated 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, a
tough-on-crime panel upheld a death sentence for a man whose attorney had
fallen asleep repeatedly at the defense table. That decision, too, was
reversed within the same circuit.
The Supreme Court sometimes disagrees as harshly with a conservative circuit
as it does with the 9th.
The 5th Circuit ruled that a mentally retarded man could be executed for
murder, but the higher court disagreed, 6-3.
Similarly, when the conservative 4th Circuit found reason to undo the
three-decade practice of advising a suspect of his rights, the Supreme Court
reversed, 7-2.
For many, especially parents, the 9th was too protective of free speech when
it ruled that a law against "virtual pornography" was unconstitutionally
vague in making it a crime to circulate material that "appears to be" sexual
images of minors or gives that "impression."
But the Supreme Court backed the decision.
What's 'liberal'?
Even as an ideological battle about "conservative" vs. "liberal" judges
escalates on Main Street and in Congress, the distinctions are becoming less
and less meaningful, in some experts' views.
George said that two other circuits in recent years have not been branded
particularly liberal despite having a slightly higher percentage of
Democratic appointees than the 9th.
"Classifications are breaking down," said Arthur D. Hellman, law professor
at the University of Pittsburgh and a former director of the 9th Circuit's
legal staff.
"Judicial issues are more complex than the simple labels we attach to them,"
he said. "You have to talk about each case specifically."
Hellman cited as an example the 9th Circuit's ruling that a virulent
anti-abortion Web site was illegally posing a threat to abortion doctors.
One side of the court took the nominally liberal position that the site
constituted free speech, while the other succeeded in giving protection to
doctors whose practices are anathema to conservatives.
"Which is the liberal position?" Hellman asked.
The alignment of judges on the issue is no help. Two who are considered at
opposite ends of the ideological spectrum agreed this time on the side of
free speech, which lost.
Question of balance
When it comes to U.S. Senate confirmation of judicial appointments, neither
the presumed ideological leanings of nominees nor the party of the
appointing president is a reliable predictor of how a judge will rule in
coming years, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
No fan of the 9th Circuit bench, Kyl nonetheless said he and other
Republicans believe that trying to impose some sort of ideological "balance"
on the 9th or any other court would be futile. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,
has argued otherwise.
Kyl said, "Presidents ought to be able to nominate judges they truly want,
as long as a nominee's competence and honesty are not in question. . . .
Judges are not easily pigeonholed by their presumed political affiliations."
He pointed to four controversial decisions in which judges ruled the
opposite of what their backgrounds suggested.
Among the four, the Pledge case, now under reconsideration, offers the
greatest ironies. Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the opinion, is the son of a
Baptist minister, is active in the Presbyterian Church and was appointed by
Richard Nixon.
"He is not the village atheist," Wasby said.
Judicial activism
To see judges as political operatives trying to impose their own social
agenda discredits their integrity and expertise, said Mary Schroeder, chief
judge of the 9th Circuit.
Schroeder, who presides over the far-flung circuit from Phoenix, said judges
are not pursuing personal or political agendas.
"Judges usually come to the bench from backgrounds of strong advocacy and,
often, partisan activism," she said. "When they put on that robe, they leave
those at the courthouse door."
Judges recognize, and must allow for, how their own experiences shape their
concepts of fairness and logic, Schroeder said.
"Someone who has been a schoolteacher . . . is going to have a different
perspective on some issues," she said. "And, certainly, a member of a
minority group will have experiences and an outlook very different from that
of the average White male."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 11:48:07 AM |
|
|
"Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent."
Here you have it ladies and gentlemen, a cite by Dave Thompson that supports
my statement that the 9th Circuit is overturned at a higher rate than the
other circuit courts.
Thank you , Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
24 Sep 2003 06:09:47 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|"Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
:|Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
:|reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
:|appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
:|percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent."
:|
:|
:|
:|Here you have it ladies and gentlemen, a cite by Dave Thompson that supports
:|my statement that the 9th Circuit is overturned at a higher rate than the
:|other circuit courts.
:|
:|Thank you , Dave.
:|
LOL, jeffy thinks he has established something really important.
All will notice that jeffry carefully extracted his "evidence" from the
total of the following. When the following is read in its entirety jeffry
is once more cleaning the egg from his face.
Here jeffy:
A piece of advice jeffy:
Simplistic thoughts, positions, etc don't work well in the real world
which is far from being simplistic.
From: "Smitty Jagermanjenson" <olj@wonet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 03:14:32 GMT
[He was replying to another, a bona fide troll. A lot like you jeffy, but
in this case it wasn't you.]
My facts are right you ignorant fucking retard. Do you have any idea how
the courts work? There are 12 members of the appeals court and only three
decide each case unless an en banc appeal is made. That means three cases
are decided every day, which is considerably less than what the Supreme
Court judges on average. On top of that, in another post, you assumed a
response that was even greater than the response you challenged. You're not
even smart enough to be consistent from one post to another.
Do us all a favor and the next time you reply to something you know nothing
about, don't.
You fucking dumbass *****.
For your enjoyment:
9th Circuit Court handles the most cases, criticism
Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Dec. 1, 2002 12:00 AM
For years, it has been the court that conservatives loved to hate.
Now, by declaring that God doesn't belong in the Pledge of Allegiance, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has invited equal-opportunity loathing
from believers right and left.
Yet the "left coast," "out of control," "wacko," "what are they smoking out
there?" court also makes thousands of decisions every year that by any
stretch can't be considered "far out."
The 9th is a study in superlatives and contrasts.
After weeding out about half of the appeals it receives as not worthy of
deliberations, it adjudicates the most cases of any of the 12 regional
circuits in the nation: about 5,000 a year, or more than four other
circuits combined.
The 9th Circuit covers the largest territory: nine states and the U.S.
possessions in the Pacific, with a total population of 55 million.
It has the largest bench, authorized at 28 active judges, with 24 of the
seats filled. It also has 22 senior, or semiretired, judges who could
retire at full pay but largely continue to hear cases.
Most of all, the 9th is widely labeled the most liberal appellate court in
the nation and the one with the most cases overturned by the U.S. Supreme
Court.
With that record, the court has long been on trial itself in the political
arena and the court of public opinion.
Todd Gaziano, director of legal and judicial studies for the conservative
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., sums up the right's verdict: "The
9th is the worst . . . a sort of lawless land."
Only a tiny proportion of Circuit Court cases is accepted for review by the
U.S. Supreme Court, but the 9th Circuit's record of being slapped down in
80 percent of those appeals is proof that its left-leaning judges have
abandoned both the U.S. Constitution and common sense, critics contend.
That assertion disregards thousands of cases in which decisions have little
or no discernible ideology, defenders respond. Nearly all Circuit Court
cases are heard and decided by panels of three judges, they say, and to
label the entire court "lawless" exaggerates complaints that stem from a
few rulings or individual judges.
Most-reversed circuit
Statistics don't mark the 9th as particularly defective.
Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent.
All courts have reversals, but the volume of cases they handle is important
for context.
George said that of the nearly 83,000 cases decided by the Circuit Courts
on the basis of hearings or briefs, the Supreme Court accepted only 186, or
scarcely 0.2 percent, for review.
The high court's reversal or return of 119 cases constituted fewer than 1.5
reversals per 1,000 circuit decisions.
For the 9th Circuit, the ratio was 2.5 per 1,000. But the Chicago-based 7th
Circuit, with eight judges appointed by Republicans and three by Democrats,
had virtually the same ratio.
"People looking at reversal rates need to remember that the base line is
not 50 percent," said Stephen E. Wasby, professor emeritus of political
science at the Albany campus of State University of New York.
The Supreme Court is most likely to review cases it thinks may have been
decided wrongly, so the court normally overturns about two of every three
cases, Wasby said.
Sources of controversy
One reason the 9th is so controversial, many observers agree, is that it is
more likely than other circuits to handle complex issues that require legal
pioneering in a rapidly changing society.
Topics spanning adult entertainment, Internet free speech, copyright
infringement in cyberspace, water disputes, immigration law and Indian
sovereignty do not arise so often in other regions.
But criminal law, common to all courts, is one focus of criticism of the
San Francisco-based court.
An example of the 9th's criminal-coddling tendencies, critics charge, was
its 2-1 ruling that a convict should be allowed to send sperm to his wife
from prison. Preventing him from procreating is cruel and unusual
punishment and therefore unconstitutional, judges said.
Defenders point out, however, that the Circuit Court reversed the decision
itself in one of its rare 11-judge en banc rehearings. Other circuits err,
too
The 9th Circuit has no exclusive claim to decisions denounced as wacky.
In the Republican-dominated 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, a
tough-on-crime panel upheld a death sentence for a man whose attorney had
fallen asleep repeatedly at the defense table. That decision, too, was
reversed within the same circuit.
The Supreme Court sometimes disagrees as harshly with a conservative
circuit as it does with the 9th.
The 5th Circuit ruled that a mentally retarded man could be executed for
murder, but the higher court disagreed, 6-3.
Similarly, when the conservative 4th Circuit found reason to undo the
three-decade practice of advising a suspect of his rights, the Supreme
Court reversed, 7-2.
For many, especially parents, the 9th was too protective of free speech
when it ruled that a law against "virtual pornography" was
unconstitutionally vague in making it a crime to circulate material that
"appears to be" sexual images of minors or gives that "impression."
But the Supreme Court backed the decision.
What's 'liberal'?
Even as an ideological battle about "conservative" vs. "liberal" judges
escalates on Main Street and in Congress, the distinctions are becoming
less and less meaningful, in some experts' views.
George said that two other circuits in recent years have not been branded
particularly liberal despite having a slightly higher percentage of
Democratic appointees than the 9th.
"Classifications are breaking down," said Arthur D. Hellman, law professor
at the University of Pittsburgh and a former director of the 9th Circuit's
legal staff.
"Judicial issues are more complex than the simple labels we attach to
them," he said. "You have to talk about each case specifically."
Hellman cited as an example the 9th Circuit's ruling that a virulent
anti-abortion Web site was illegally posing a threat to abortion doctors.
One side of the court took the nominally liberal position that the site
constituted free speech, while the other succeeded in giving protection to
doctors whose practices are anathema to conservatives.
"Which is the liberal position?" Hellman asked.
The alignment of judges on the issue is no help. Two who are considered at
opposite ends of the ideological spectrum agreed this time on the side of
free speech, which lost.
Question of balance
When it comes to U.S. Senate confirmation of judicial appointments, neither
the presumed ideological leanings of nominees nor the party of the
appointing president is a reliable predictor of how a judge will rule in
coming years, said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
No fan of the 9th Circuit bench, Kyl nonetheless said he and other
Republicans believe that trying to impose some sort of ideological
"balance" on the 9th or any other court would be futile. Sen. Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y., has argued otherwise. Kyl said, "Presidents ought to be
able to nominate judges they truly want, as long as a nominee's competence
and honesty are not in question. . . . Judges are not easily pigeonholed by
their presumed political affiliations."
He pointed to four controversial decisions in which judges ruled the
opposite of what their backgrounds suggested.
Among the four, the Pledge case, now under reconsideration, offers the
greatest ironies. Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the opinion, is the son of a
Baptist minister, is active in the Presbyterian Church and was appointed by
Richard Nixon.
"He is not the village atheist," Wasby said.
Judicial activism
To see judges as political operatives trying to impose their own social
agenda discredits their integrity and expertise, said Mary Schroeder, chief
judge of the 9th Circuit.
Schroeder, who presides over the far-flung circuit from Phoenix, said
judges are not pursuing personal or political agendas.
"Judges usually come to the bench from backgrounds of strong advocacy and,
often, partisan activism," she said. "When they put on that robe, they
leave those at the courthouse door."
Judges recognize, and must allow for, how their own experiences shape their
concepts of fairness and logic, Schroeder said.
"Someone who has been a schoolteacher . . . is going to have a different
perspective on some issues," she said. "And, certainly, a member of a
minority group will have experiences and an outlook very different from
that of the average White male."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
23 Sep 2003 12:50:13 PM |
|
|
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vn0ub66uvlqgea@corp.supernews.com...
"Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had rates of 75
percent. The rate for all circuits combined was 64 percent."
Here you have it ladies and gentlemen, a cite by Dave Thompson that
supports
my statement that the 9th Circuit is overturned at a higher rate than the
other circuit courts.
Your contention was that it was significant, and it obviously is not. I'm
sorry that you actually had to read the entire article to find a quote you
could take out of context that appeared to support you but it just made you
look dishonest.
Thank you , Dave.
No, thank you Jeff. It's like catching fish in a barrel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for 9th cir ct justices to go |
24 Sep 2003 11:27:55 AM |
|
|
"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@wdmdx1.com> wrote in message
news:vn11v1pdj7f337@corp.supernews.com...
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vn0ub66uvlqgea@corp.supernews.com...
"Tracey George, a law professor at Northwestern University who has
tracked
Circuit Court data over three years, said that although an 80 percent
reversal rate seems high, two other circuits, one dominated by
Republican
appointees and the other with a one-Democrat majority, had | | | | | | |
