L.A. Times Editorial Slams Ninth Circuit and Stephen Reinhardt
Every so often, the editors of the L.A. Times let you know that they’re not completely beyond hope. They do so again today in an editorial titled The 9th Circuit’s deserved slap. The editorial is subtitled “Supreme Court rebuff in murder case points to a recurring problem with the appeals panel,” and it opens with this passage:
CRITICS OF THE U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, such as outgoing California Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, are celebrating that liberal-leaning court’s latest rebuff by the Supreme Court. By a 9-0 vote, the justices on Monday overturned a finding by the 9th Circuit in a San Jose case that a convicted murderer had been denied a fair trial because relatives of the victim came to court wearing small buttons bearing the dead man’s photograph.
This page, which strongly opposes capital punishment, is nevertheless glad to see the 9th Circuit’s wrist slapped for improperly applying the law as it is written.
The editors say that the case
might seem like a technical argument between courts, but it points to something more pervasive and troubling: that the 9th Circuit seems predisposed to second-guess state courts, especially in death penalty cases — even to the point of usurping the high court’s role. The 9th Circuit’s image problem is easy grist for conservatives, but it should be troubling to liberals and moderates as well.
I would be more shocked by this if it weren’t for the fact that the paper’s news article on the case was similarly slanted against the Ninth Circuit. My jaw dropped open when I read that article, but it helped lessen the shock of today’s editorial.
If only these sensible moments could become a trend . . .
The Ninth Circuit is for liberals what Bob Jones University is for conservatives — every bad notion distilled.
To think that any Senator can look at any Bush appointee for the 9th Circuit and talk about them being out side the mainstream … the “mainstream” of that court is somewhere in Cuba.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 12/12/2006 @ 5:57 pmPatterico–
Not to complain about the Times’ position per se, but even here we see the editorial position clouding the news article. It’s even bad when I agree with it.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 12/12/2006 @ 5:59 pmLiberals like the LA Times editorial page support the nomination of judges such as Rheinhardt, with long tributes to the nominee’s devotion to civil liberties. And then about every one hundred decisions, when the ruling is beyond all bounds of legal reasoning and common sense–they write a strongly-worded editorial criticizing the decision.
Daniel M (71415b) — 12/12/2006 @ 6:46 pmNothing short of shameless hypocracy, people. And still their circulation keeps dropping.
The 9th Circuit’s judicial philosophy appears to be that if it continually flings blithering nonsense dressed up as law out of its cage, some of it is bound to stick. What a sad excuse for an American court.
monsoon (001e7b) — 12/13/2006 @ 5:59 amThey only did it to trick you; look for a call from a honey-voiced young thing in a couple of days, trying to get you to subscribe again! 🙂
Dana (3e4784) — 12/13/2006 @ 6:11 amI don’t think this editorial is a spec of enlightenment at all. I think of it as some pot head being let loose in the copy room.
Howard Veit (2d4db0) — 12/13/2006 @ 7:08 amRelax, the apocalypse has not arrived yet. The NYT was “disappointed” by the decision.
great unknown (a90377) — 12/13/2006 @ 7:26 amBTW, which is losing readership faster, the NYT or the LAT?
The LA times has about as much knowledge of the law as the Reinhardt has in printing newspapers. Neither one of them should be able to do either one.
DKSuddeth (ac44fb) — 12/13/2006 @ 12:33 pmThe infamous 9th curcut court dont deserve a a slap it deserves a swift kick right where it hurts
krazy kagu (711c87) — 12/13/2006 @ 1:24 pm