Why do California Judges..........

[Hntnhrd]

Why is it that California Judges Decide what happens on our National Forests. I don't know anything about the details, But it always seems like the tree huggers file their suits in California over issues that are in every other state.

Only in the Missoulian

Federal judge rejects Bush forest rules



WASHINGTON - A federal district judge ruled Friday that the Bush administration illegally rewrote the rules for managing 192 million acres of federally owned forests and grasslands in 2005 and must consider the environmental impact of its plan before offering another policy blueprint.

The ruling by Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California suspends the forest rules the administration adopted on

Jan. 5, 2005. Hamilton said the government did not adequately assess the policy's effects on wildlife and the environment and did not give sufficient public notice of the “paradigm shift” that the rule put in place.
The judge ordered the Forest Service to suspend its 2005 rule and subject it to a new round of analysis, taking into account the environmental protections and public participation requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act

 

[Oak]

What does it matter where the judge is from? The Bush Administration was found to have broken the LAW. Don't you expect every federal judge to uphold the law?

BTW, this is posted in the Sportsman's Issues section. Get permission from an admin for access if you want.

 

[Hntnhrd]

I am not a Bush Hater and won't get into that discussion.
What I am asking is why does a Judge in California decide what happens in National Forests in other parts of the country? It always seems like they go to California for these suits. Why not Florida or any of the other circuits?

 

[Oak]

What I am asking is why does a Judge in California decide what happens in National Forests in other parts of the country?

Are you saying that you think separate lawsuits should be filed in every circuit court in order for the judgements to be relevent in every national forest? If not, then what does it matter which court it's filed in?

 

[Delw]

I think because its one of the highest federal courts

 

[Big Fin]

Because the the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals is located in San Francisco.

The 9th circuit covers the states of MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, HI, and AK. A very large area. The largest of any circuit court of appeals.

If there is a spat about national forest service issues, or other federal issues, in these states, it will eventually end up in San Francisco being decided by the judges in this court of appeals.

Since there are a lot of National Forest issues in these states, expect a lot of the appeals decision to be decided by the 9th circuit.

The 9th circuit is know to be the most dissenting of any circuit. Their decision are overturned by the US Supreme court at a higher frequency than any of the other appeals courts.

If ever your congressman is wanting to split up the 9th district into two or more districts, support him. Let the 9th circuit be CA and have the other states form one or more other districts.

 

[IdahoMuleyMan]

Thats correct.. The 9 th circuit court is also the same court that decided we could not have our kids recite the pledge of allegiance in school with the words "under god" in it. It was not a popular decision here in Idaho.

 

[Spitz]

This decision was at a federal district court. There are many federal districts in California as well as in each other state. It is where a federal case only begins. A lot of these are taken in California because there are many more liberal judges found there who are more likely to see the law differently than would a more conservative judge in another state.
But, the case is only beginning there, it will be heard by the 9th Circuit on appeal, which consists of about 20 judges (not sure exactly how many) 3-5 of which are randomly appointed to hear a case and although the majority are from California, you do get some from other states and there's a good mixture of views.

So, while the judge was able to suspend Bush's actions, she'll either be overturned or Bush will have to alter his policy.

 

[IdahoMuleyMan]

There are many federal districts in California as well as in each other state. It is where a federal case only begins. A lot of these are taken in California because there are many more liberal judges found there who are more likely to see the law differently than would a more conservative judge in another state.
.

I guess my point exactly.. several of the states represented by the district court are much more conservative than the average Californian or at least to say California judge. It is very difficult and to say the least, desparaging to have your way of life ruled upon by groups of people that are in no way,shape or form, familiar or in the least bit concerned with your lifestyle, or what you hold near and dear. At this point I am refering to issues in general, not necessarily the national forest item noted in the previous posts.
I am not really familiar enough with that particular subject as to make reference.

Oak said "What does it matter where the judge is from? The Bush Administration was found to have broken the LAW. Don't you expect every federal judge to uphold the law?"

Lets face it right or wrong, the politics of an individual judge will most certainly have an impact on what that particular judge could deem as "breaking the Law"

 

[Hntnhrd]

Thanks those were the kinds of explanations I was looking for, not the first couple i got.
Seems ridiculous that someone living in San Fransisco would be able to make rulings on issues in Mt or Alaska. I know nothing about this plan but would guess that it might also effect Forests in New Hampshire Maine and New York. And if I remember correctly from elementary School no where near California.

Once again the point of my post was clarification as to why these things are in Court in California and that was answered.Thanks

 

[BuzzH]

Something to keep in mind is that we're talking about the UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE...not the MONTANA, IDAHO, or ALASKA FOREST SERVICE.

Every taxpayer in this country has equal access to all federal lands...and equal access to an equal say in how that land is managed.

In other words some hippie from California absolutely does have the same right to comment on decision making and policy in general regarding FEDERAL LAND as some hick from nowhereville Montana.

Your address gives you no bigger say in regard to federal land management...and rightfully so.

As far as the courts go, thats how the system works.

Hntnhrd,

What makes you think a judge from MT or ID would have ignored the law and found diffently in this case?

The USFS must follow federal laws and regulations across all states. They cant ignore NEPA in Montana, the ESA in Idaho, etc. They have to follow federal laws in all the states.

When the USFS fails to follow federal laws and regulations...the circuit court is exactly where they need to be corrected.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Seems ridiculous that someone living in San Fransisco would be able to make rulings on issues in Mt or Alaska.
Once again the point of my post was clarification as to why these things are in Court in California and that was answered.Thanks

It is not a "Court in California", it is a Federal Court. It is not of people living in San Francisco, it is merely headquartered out of SF. It is called a CIRCUIT court, because, the court is supposed to follow a CIRCUIT in the region.

The make-up of the court is as follows.

46 Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix, AZ 1940 1979–present 2000–present — Carter
50 Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills, CA 1923 1979–present — — Carter
57 Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles, CA 1931 1980–present — — Carter
62 Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski Pasadena, CA 1950 1985–present — — Reagan
65 Circuit Judge Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain Portland, OR 1937 1986–present — — Reagan
69 Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena, CA 1941 1989–present — — G.H.W. Bush
71 Circuit Judge Andrew Jay Kleinfeld Fairbanks, AK 1945 1991–present — — G.H.W. Bush
72 Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix, AZ 1945 1994–present — — Clinton
74 Circuit Judge Sidney Runyan Thomas Billings, MT 1953 1996–present — — Clinton
75 Circuit Judge Barry G. Silverman Phoenix, AZ 1951 1998–present — — Clinton
76 Circuit Judge Susan Graber Portland, OR 1949 1998–present — — Clinton
77 Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown San Diego, CA 1951 1998–present — — Clinton
78 Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena, CA 1954 1998–present — — Clinton
79 Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher San Francisco, CA 1945 1998–present — — Clinton
80 Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena, CA 1939 1999–present — — Clinton
81 Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould Seattle, WA 1946 1999–present — — Clinton
82 Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez Pasadena, CA 1947 2000–present — — Clinton
83 Circuit Judge Marsha L. Berzon San Francisco, CA 1945 2000–present — — Clinton
84 Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman Seattle, WA 1953 2000–present — — Clinton
85 Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas, NV 1952 2000–present — — Clinton
86 Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton Honolulu, HI 1950 2002–present — — G.W. Bush
87 Circuit Judge Jay Bybee Las Vegas, NV 1953 2003–present — — G.W. Bush
88 Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan Sacramento, CA 1950 2003–present — — G.W. Bush
89 Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea San Francisco, CA 1934 2003–present — — G.W. Bush
90 Circuit Judge Milan Smith, Jr. Pasadena, CA 1942 2006–present — — G.W. Bush
91 Circuit Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta Pasadena, CA 1954 2006–present — — G.W. Bush
92 Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith Idaho 1949 2007–present – – G.W. Bush
— Circuit Judge (vacant - seat 5) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a)
29 Senior Circuit Judge James R. Browning San Francisco, CA 1918 1961–2000 1976–1988 2000–present Kennedy
38 Senior Circuit Judge Alfred Theodore Goodwin Pasadena, CA 1923 1971–1991 1988–1991 1991–present Nixon
39 Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace San Diego, CA 1928 1972–1996 1991–1996 1996–present Nixon
40 Senior Circuit Judge Joseph Tyree Sneed III San Francisco, CA 1920 1973–1987 (none) 1987–present Nixon
43 Senior Circuit Judge Procter Ralph Hug, Jr. Reno, NV 1931 1977–2002 1996–2000 2002–present Carter
45 Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle, WA 1923 1979–1998 (none) 1998–present Carter
47 Senior Circuit Judge Otto Richard Skopil, Jr. Portland, OR 1919 1979–1986 (none) 1986–present Carter
48 Senior Circuit Judge Joseph Jerome Farris Seattle, WA 1930 1979–1995 (none) 1995–present Carter
49 Senior Circuit Judge Arthur Lawrence Alarcon Los Angeles, CA 1925 1979–1992 (none) 1992–present Carter
51 Senior Circuit Judge Warren John Ferguson Santa Ana, CA 1920 1979–1986 (none) 1986–present Carter
53 Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Wright Nelson Pasadena, CA 1928 1979–1995 (none) 1995–present Carter
54 Senior Circuit Judge William Cameron Canby, Jr. Phoenix, AZ 1931 1980–1996 (none) 1996–present Carter
55 Senior Circuit Judge Robert Boochever Pasadena, CA 1917 1980–1986 (none) 1986–present Carter
58 Senior Circuit Judge Robert R. Beezer Seattle, WA 1928 1984–1996 (none) 1996–present Reagan
59 Senior Circuit Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena, CA 1929 1984–1997 (none) 1997–present Reagan
61 Senior Circuit Judge Melvin T. Brunetti Reno, NV 1933 1985–1999 (none) 1999–present Reagan
63 Senior Circuit Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco, CA 1926 1985–1996 (none) 1996–present Reagan
64 Senior Circuit Judge David R. Thompson San Diego, CA 1930 1985–1998 (none) 1998–present Reagan
66 Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy Portland, OR 1929 1987–1997 (none) 1997–present Reagan
67 Senior Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott Boise, ID 1939 1988–2004 (none) 2005–present Reagan
68 Senior Circuit Judge Ferdinand Francis Fernandez Pasadena, CA 1937 1989–2002 (none) 2002–present G.H.W. Bush
70 Senior Circuit Judge Thomas G. Nelson Boise, ID 1936 1990–2003 (none) 2003–present G.H.W. Bush
73 Senior Circuit Judge Atsushi Wallace Tashima Pasadena, CA 1934 1996–2004 (none) 2004–present Clinton

Not, there are judges from IDAHO, Alaska, Nevada, Washington, Oregon....etc...

 

[IdahoMuleyMan]

|oo decided not to post to this subject anymore. Forgot to follow my own rules regarding politics, religion and of course rifle caliber..

 

[Hntnhrd]

Ok I stated my question got answered but I quess I am to stupid to let it go!

Buzz why is it that when I say thanks for some clarification you come back with : "What makes you think a judge from MT or ID would have ignored the law and found diffently in this case?"
I didn't say that above, But since you brought it up what makes you think that Judges always follow the law in their court rooms? I spent quite a few years in the Criminal justice system, the last few I would like to forget. Two of which I prosecuted cases. Judges do use their position to push there own agendas. In fact Myself and two other Police Chiefs took one District Court Judge to task with the Judicial Reveiw Board and he was sanctioned for his actions.

Jose thanks for the clarification on where they are from. I only used the SF thing as an example I didn't mean to imply that every 9 circuit court judge lived there and carried a little dog around in a purse.

 

[BuzzH]

Htnrhrd,

Did you read your post?

I think you should, you asked why a court in California should decide what happens in Montana.

Because thats how the system works.

You implied that California...NOT the circuit court judges, decide the fate of federal laws. Remember what you said, "Seems ridiculous that someone living in San Fransisco would be able to make rulings on issues in Mt or Alaska."

They're federal laws and regulations that the Bush Proposal is violating. The circuit court is the place to correct them.

So, do you think the judge in this case did not follow the law? Or is it just another red herring you're throwing into the discussion?

 

[IdahoMuleyMan]

"The ruling by Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California"

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California is the Federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma. The court hears cases in its courtrooms in Eureka, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. It is headquartered in San Francisco.

These are the District judges

Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker VRW
Alsup, Judge William WHA
Armstrong, Judge Saundra B. SBA
Brazil, Magistrate Judge Wayne D. WDB
Breyer, Judge Charles R. CRB
Chen, Magistrate Judge Edward M. EMC
Chesney, Judge Maxine M. MMC
Smith, Fern M. FMS
Conti, Senior Judge Samuel SC
Fogel, Judge Jeremy JF
Hamilton, Judge Phyllis J. PJH
Henderson, Senior Judge Thelton E. TEH
Illston, Judge Susan SI
James, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena MEJ
Jenkins, Judge Martin J. MJJ
Jensen, Senior Judge D. Lowell DLJ
Schwarzer, Senior Judge William W WWS
Laporte, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. EDL
Larson, Chief Magistrate Judge James JL
Lloyd, Magistrate Judge Howard R. HRL
Patel, Judge Marilyn Hall MHP
Seeborg, Magistrate Judge Richard RS
Spero, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. JCS
Trumbull, Magistrate Judge Patricia V. PVT
Vadas, Magistrate Judge Nandor J. NJV
Ware, Judge James JW
White, Judge Jeffrey S. JSW
Whyte, Judge Ronald M. RMW
Wilken, Judge Claudia CW
Zimmerman, Magistrate Judge Bernard BZ

The cultural and political jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit is just as varied as the land within its geographical borders. In a dissenting opinion in a rights of publicity case involving “Wheel of Fortune” star Vanna White, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski sardonically noted that “[f]or better or worse, we are the Court of Appeals for the Hollywood Circuit.” Judges from more remote parts of the circuit note the contrast between legal issues confronted by populous states such as California and those confronted by rural states such as Alaska, Idaho, and Montana. Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, who maintains his chambers in Fairbanks, Alaska, wrote in a 1998 letter: “Much federal law is not national in scope…. It is easy to make a mistake construing these laws when unfamiliar with them, as we often are, or not interpreting them regularly, as we never do.”[1]

This from wikipedia

Many scholars and jurists, like Judge Kleinfeld, cite regional differences between states in the circuit, as well as the practical, procedural, and substantive difficulties in administering a court of this size, as reasons why Congress should split the Ninth Circuit into two or more smaller circuit courts. Opponents of such a move claim that the court is functioning smoothly from an administrative standpoint, and that the real problem is not that the circuit is too large, but that Congress has not created enough judgeships to handle the court's workload. Moreover, many who advocate the preservation of the current Ninth Circuit see politics as a motivating factor in the split movement. They claim that by implementing a scheme that isolates California from the other states in the circuit, the effect of a split will be to dilute the power of judges who have handed down rulings that have angered social conservatives. Whatever the motivations of both sides, it is clear that the proposal to split the Ninth Circuit will be as politically incendiary as the recent confirmation battles over circuit court judges.

I have attached a link to this article if you would like to read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit

I think Htnrhrd asked a valid question a question that is in fact asked quite often. It had nothing to do with weather Bush's policy was illegal, it was about the process of deciding its legality and who does it.

Pretty heated stuff

 

[danr55]

Let's try this explanation.

You belong to a greenie organization with several chapters around the country. You have a cause that you want to pursue in Federal Court. You have your cause examined by several scumbag lawyers (just a personal opinion of the low lifes.. ) and they all say that your cause has merit. So you search the chapters of your organization to find out if there are any Federal judges that are members or that are sympathetic to your cause. You find a Federal judge that has contributed to your organization in the past on a regular basis even though he or she is not a member. For the highest chance of success, where would you file your Federal lawsuit?

 

[cjcj]

Scumbag lawyers= 9th circuit in San Francisco....Danr is correct , many times the court/venue makes the differance.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Scumbag lawyers= 9th circuit in San Francisco....Danr is correct , many times the court/venue makes the differance.

CJ,
Why would the location of the court matter where and how a Federal Law is interperted? Do you think Federal Laws should be decided differently based on geographical location?

 

[Spitz]

Judges aren't necessarily appointed out of the circuit that they end up presiding over. So, if a group was looking for a favorable court to take a case to, they would look more to a judge's previous decisions than they would the particular circuit.

I know Bush makes mistakes, as do judges. Luckily we have checks and balances in our system to try and keep the rogues and retards in check.

But just because a circuit court judge found a Bush policy illegal, doesn't mean that it is. The judge that ruled on the issue may very well have personal beliefs and biases that skewed her view of the law leading her to rule the way that she did. She may also be correct in her determination. Now, rather than a single judge making the decision, on appeal, a panel of judges will do the same and then we'll have a better idea.

I just don't think it can be ignored that individual judges do see and interpret the law according to their core set of values. That's why it's such a big deal who the president is when a Supreme Court justice gets replaced.