Citing rapid growth in the region, the House has voted to split up the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, critics are claiming
that this is a political move designed to punish the court which has rendered rulings that has angered conservatives. The revised plan would still
leave California and Hawaii in the Ninths district and establish 2 others to cover the other Western states. Denying it was political motivation,
supporters of the split pointed to the huge case load and the huge growth in the region.
news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON - The Republican-led House voted Tuesday to break up the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an action opponents said
was motivated by conservatives' ire over some of the court's rulings.
Nine states are currently covered by the 9th Circuit, but the legislation would leave just California and Hawaii in a revamped lineup.
The proposal splits the seven other states into two new courts: one to handle appeals from Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada; and the other to
oversee Alaska, Oregon and Washington.
Supporters said the new lineup reflects the need to address the region's bulging caseload and rapid population growth. They denied the vote was an
expression of displeasure with court rulings, including the 2002 opinion that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional when recited in
public schools.
"The need to split the 9th Circuit is undeniable. It has grown so rapidly that we will have to split this court," said Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
The most recent ruling that sparked debate was the 2002 opinion that the Pledge of Allegiance could not be cited in public schools due to the “under
god” portion. The measure passed the House by a very small margin 205-194 and is expected to receive strong opposition in the house. California Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated that he felt that the split was unnecessary
[edit on 10/5/04 by FredT]
