|
RuanGacho posted:Yeah since Alaska is in there I think the 9th might actually cover about half the land mass of the united states. Which while it isnt any more important than "look at all dat red area vote republican!!" it might indicate that particular circuit is overbroad and might need some help. The Ninth's size has been a recognized problem for a while now. There's just not a great solution because of California. Really it's big enough that it would normally make sense to split it off into its own circuit, but nobody really wants to have the "all-california" circuit, so you have to decide who to leave in with it, and what to do with Hawaii and Alaska and gently caress it just appoint more judges and walk away slowly.
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 20:00 |
|
|
Yeah, Chemerinsky's great. If you'd rather not do the casebook, he has a more readable con law supplement that most of us used in law school to explain the black letter law when we had a hard time with cases. This is going to sound dumb, but the Wikipedia articles on the topic aren't that bad either. For instance, the strict scrutiny one is pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Appellate courts aren't actually overworked, are they? SCOTUS certainly isn't. How many cases does SCOTUS hear in a year? 75-80 for oral argument, give or take? I'd think deciding a case every five days is a pretty hefty workload. Sure, they only write 1 in 9, meaning less than a dozen opinions per justice per year, but then you have dissents & concurrences to write as well. Plus getting prepared for a case, and I imagine it's a lot of work to get up to speed on every case. Plus screening cert petitions on top of that (sure, it's basically just "look at a clerk's recommendation, make a call" but that's a lot of reading to do when there's 10k cert petitions annually).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
According to Nina Totenberg on air a few minutes ago, there was apparently some back channel conversations where republican senators agreed to confirm garland during the lame duck period if a Democrat wins the election. In that context, a nomination of a satisfactory moderate justice makes sense as a hedge against the republicans winning the senate but losing the presidency.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 15:52
|
|