Libertarian Court?

|

Says today's USA Today:

"Another off-the-wall opinion from those wacko, liberal judges in San Francisco.

"That was the widespread reaction last June, when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional because Congress had inserted the words "under God" in 1954…

"But a closer look at the 9th Circuit suggests that many of its rulings stem not from a liberal approach to the law, but from a libertarian, Western spirit that is shared by its liberal and conservative members. It also reveals that as the frequent handler of groundbreaking cases involving issues ranging from Internet privacy to immigration matters, the court often draws more scrutiny than other circuits do."

Conservatives want to break it up.

NEXT: The Colonel Kurtz of Pop

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. the court often draws more scrutiny than other circuits do

    Perhaps it’s not the judicial incompetence, then, but this extra scrutiny that explains the 92% overturn rate for decisions of the 9th circuit…

  2. Unless I’m mistaken though, they are not pro-2nd amendment. I believe they recently ruled that the right to own a gun is collective not individual. On the other hand the (I think) 5th circuit made the opposite ruling in another case.

  3. You’re correct Jim. I’m not sure how many members of the court were involved with the decision upholding California’s insane assault weapons ban, but that definitely strikes me as more elitist liberal than a libertarian philosophy. I often agree with the 9th circuit, as I did with the pledge of allegience ruling, but I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that the court is consistently libertarian. I think it seems more likely that the liberal and conservative factions on the court are just balancing each other out to some degree.

  4. The Second Amendment nullification ruling was elitist, liberal, and explicitly anti-libertarian. Ditto for the Betamax case 20 years ago which, if not reversed by the Supreme Court, would have prohibited VCRs.

    Many of their other high-profile, controversial rulings are equally elitist and equally liberal, but in ways that do not necessarily impact individual liberty one way or the other. Take, for example, the Pledge of Allegiance case, Prop 187, countless death penalty stays, or the case where a three-judge panel invalidated Prop 140 because Judges Reinhardt and Fletcher thought California voters were too stupid to understand how term limits work. To its credit, the Ninth Circuit fixed that one en banc.

  5. A lot of libertarian’s are against the death penalty because they don’t think the government should have that sort of power, so it’s not just a liberal cause.

    And I’ve personally always been against term limits, because it seems to me like voters are saying “I don’t like who everyone else is voting for, so I’m going to make sure he can’t run again.” I know professional politicians are a bad idea for numerous reasons, but I should be able to vote for whoever I want.

  6. “Conservatives want to break it up”

    of course. as always. and liberals would want to break it up if the court, using the same principles, decided on something manifestly pro-2nd Ammendment…

    freedom for me, but not for thee (to paraphrase Nat Hentoff)

    happy friday!
    drf

  7. “Conservatives want to break it up”

    of course. as always. and liberals would want to break it up if the court, using the same principles, decided on something manifestly pro-2nd Ammendment…

    freedom for me, but not for thee (to paraphrase Nat Hentoff)

    happy friday!
    drf

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.