11/14/2004 06:16:55 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

Debate has abounded regarding splitting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into smaller, more manageable entities. A bill in front of Congress currently would do just that - the largest circuit in the land would be divided into three smaller circuits. Some judges in the Ninth oppose the split, and the Wall Street Journal had an article today by two of those judges, Alex Kozinski and Sidney Thomas. One is a Reagan appointee, and one is a Clinton appointee. Their commentary, in the least, justifies the Ninth at least being split in half

Not surprisingly, many of the floor comments reflected a sad lack of understanding of the complex machinery of the Ninth Circuit and the implications of the proposed legislation. A decision that will drastically alter the way justice is administered in nine Western states, and affect the access to justice of 56 million Americans, deserves to be made openly, calmly and after due deliberation--not by stealth and procedural manipulation.

There are 11 circuits in a country of 280 million, give or take. That's an average of nearly 25.5 million people per circtui. The Ninth Circuit is twice that large in population, and likely handles more cases than other circuits due to the rather litigious nature of Californians generally. I'd have to do the research for a more definite answer, however.

Two circuits is not unreasonable. The court can no longer effectively sit en banc, and each three judge panel has a disproportional influence per binding decision than do other judges in the other ten circuits. In all due respect to the judges' opinion above, in Red State colloquialism, the Ninth Circuit has grown too big for its britches.

|||110047823582222338|||The Ninth