The 9th Circuit Court is also the most liberal court in the United States and
between 1990 and 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 73% of the 9th Circuit's
rulings, while other circuit courts averaged only 46% reversals. In 1997, for
example, the Supreme Court overturned 27 out of 28 of the 9th Circuit Court
decisions. [2]
Liberalism Out Of Control
The
backlash against the 9th Circuit Court is long overdue. Critics of the court
made efforts in 1997 to split the 9th into two separate court systems but these
efforts failed.
The court's three-judge panel ruling in September, 2003, that the California
recall election was unconstitutional because of punch card ballot machines,
has helped renew efforts to break up this renegade court. The three judges who
called for a six-month delay in the election are all well-known liberals who
have little respect for the rule of law. They issue rulings based upon their
liberal ideologies, not upon the Constitution. They include Judge Harry Pregerson,
a Jimmy Carter appointee and two Clinton appointees: Sidney R. Thomas and Richard
A. Paez.
The 9th Circuit Court is inhabited by numerous other ideological liberals whose
views are so extreme as to invite a backlash against them. One of the most notorious
judges is Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the three-judge panel that declared
the Pledge of Allegiance to be "unconstitutional" in 2002 because
it contains the words "under God" in it. Reinhardt has been described
as the country's "most audacious liberal judge" and "one of the
most overturned judges in history."
Reinhardt's political views are not difficult to discern. His wife is Ramona
Ripston, current head of the powerful Los Angeles branch of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). Ripston was a co-founder of the National Association
for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) in 1969, which has since been renamed
NARAL Pro-Choice America. (Reinhardt is Ripston's fifth husband.)
Ripston also served as a leader of the leftist People for the American Way
and was appointed in 1998 to serve on the California state Commission on Judicial
Performance. This agency oversees complaints about judicial misconduct. Her
term expires on February 28, 2005. [3]
In addition to Judge Reinhardt's decision on the Pledge of Allegiance, he has
also ruled that:
- A Mexican doctor who killed a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent
should not have been forcibly returned to the U.S. to face prosecution.
- Arizona had no right to mandate English as the official language of the
government because the legislation was allegedly "overbroad" and
thus violated the First Amendment.
- The use of police dogs to track down criminals or drugs violates the Fourth
Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizures.
Reinhardt has also expressed the view that abortion and assisted suicide are
fundamental rights. [4] In 1997, The Weekly Standard published an expose on
Reinhardt, entitled, "The Judge The Supreme Court Loves To Overturn."
Author Matthew Rees, notes that Reinhardt is one of the most prolific judges
on the court and will participate in an average of 500 cases each year. Reinhardt
has been described as ruthless and a bully who has little sympathy for his opposition.
One of his fellow 9th Circuit Judges, Stephen Trott said that Reinhardt is "pushing
the envelope harder now" than in the past and issuing ever more absurd
rulings based upon his extreme liberal views. [5]
Judge Reinhardt is symtomatic of what is drastically wrong with the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals and why Congress must do something soon to restrain the irresponsible
use of judicial power by this liberal court.
Liberals Reject The Rule Of Law
Judge Reinhardt and his liberal allies on the 9th Circuit claim that judges
should use what he calls, "an expansive approach to jurisprudence."
[6] This is also called the "Living Document" theory of legal interpretation.
This belief allows judges to reject the clear reading of the Constitution or
laws under dispute so they can impose their own political ideologies to their
rulings. These expansive approaches to interpretation allow judges to act as
kings who issue edicts without any lawful authority.
Judge Robert Bork has written extensively on judicial tyranny and explains
how liberal judges routinely ignore the Constitution in their rulings. He writes
of the U.S. Supreme Court's abuse of power in his essay, "Our Judicial
Oligarchy." He notes that these Justices "... are our masters in a
way that no President, Congressman, governor, or other elected official is.
They order our lives and we have no recourse, no means of resisting, no means
of altering their ukases. They are indeed our robed masters." [7]
What Must Be Done?
First, Congress must split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals into
two separate court systems. In fact, on October 21, 2003, the House Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on this subject. Legislators heard testimony from 9th
Circuit Court judges and a law professor on passage of H.R. 2723, sponsored
by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). This bill, titled, "Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003," will amend Title 28,
United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional federal judges
and for dividing the 9th Circuit into two circuit courts. [8] H.R. 2723 is a
revision of a previous bill, H.R. 1330, introduced by Idaho Congressman Mike
Simpson (R) in March, 2003.
H.R. 2723, if passed, will place California, Nevada, and Arizona in the 9th
Circuit and place the states of Idaho, Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon,
Washington, and the Northern Mariana Islands into a new 12th Circuit Court of
Appeals. The complete testimony from this hearing is available on the Committee
on the Judiciary's web site: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/courts.htm.
Second, Congress has authority under the U.S. Constitution, Article
II, Section 2, to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of all federal courts,
including the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that Congress can determine what
cases are allowed to be heard by these courts. Congress, by a simple vote, can
prohibit federal courts from hearing cases on abortion, pornography, homosexuality,
etc. Congress can also abolish federal courts under Article III, Section 1 of
the Constitution.
Third, Congress has authority under Article III, Section 2, to impeach
judges who fail to serve under "good behavior." Congress should strongly
consider beginning impeachment proceedings against the most arrogant and tyrannical
judges. A judge like Stephen Reinhardt, for example, routinely ignores the law
and imposes his own leftist views in his opinions. He is operating as a tyrant,
not as one who should be interpreting the laws. His impeachment might send a
strong message to other renegade judges.
Congress Must Act Now!
Our U.S. legislators have a responsibility to protect us from tyrannical judges.
The 9th Circuit Court poses a clear and present danger to our liberties and
must be split as soon as possible to restrict its ability to operate as our
robed masters.
For more information on judicial tyranny, read TVC's report, "Judges:
Our Robed Masters".
DOWNLOAD
THE PDF VERSION OF THIS SPECIAL REPORT. PRINT AND DISTRIBUTE!
[1] Andrew Peyton Thomas, "Split Decision," National Review, NROnline,
September 16, 2003.
[2] "Crapo and Craig Introduce Senate Legislation To Split 9th Circuit,"
Washington Times, March, 8, 2003, eLibrary online article.
[3] "ACLU's Ripston Joins CA Commission on Judicial Performance,"
ACLU LA press release, July 20, 1998.
[4] Greg Hoadley, "'Pledge Judge' No Stranger To Controversy," ReclaimingAmerica.org,
July 3, 2002 online edition.
[5] Matthew Rees, "The Judge The Supreme Court Loves To Overturn,"
The Weekly Standard, May 5, 1997, online issue.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Robert Bork, "Our Judicial Oligarchy," First Things, November,
1996, pgs. 21-24.
[8] Rep. Mike Simpson, Idaho GOP Press Release, October 7, 2003.