DOCSLIB.ORG

Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 47 Article 4 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey January 2017 Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation , Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 47 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. xiii (2017). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol47/iss1/4 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized editor of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. et al.: Ninth Circuit Judges JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1 CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY R. THOMAS Judge Thomas is currently serving a seven-year term as chief judge. President Clinton nominated Judge Thomas to the Ninth Circuit on July 19, 1995, and the Senate confirmed him on January 2, 1996. He received his B.A. from Montana State University in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1978. Judge Thomas practiced law with the firm of Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather from 1978 until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. He served as an Adjunct Instructor at Rocky Mountain College from 1982 to 1995. Judge Thomas maintains his chambers in Billings, Montana. SENIOR JUDGE ALFRED T. GOODWIN President Nixon nominated Judge Goodwin to the Ninth Circuit on November 3, 1971, and the Senate confirmed him on November 23, 1971. He served as chief judge from 1988 until 1991. He assumed senior status on January 31, 1991. Judge Goodwin received both his B.A., in 1947, and his J.D., in 1951, from the University of Oregon. Judge Goodwin served as a Captain in the United States Army from 1943 to 1946 and served in the Army Reserve as a judge advocate from 1960 to 1969, attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Judge Goodwin was a circuit judge for the Second Judicial District of Oregon from 1955 to 1960, an associate justice of the Oregon Supreme Court from 1960 to 1969, and a United States district court judge for the District of Oregon from 1969 until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. Judge Goodwin maintains his chambers in Pasadena, California. 1 These biographies have been primarily derived from the following sources: FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER, BIOGRAPHICAL DIRECTORY OF FEDERAL JUDGES, www.fjc.gov/history/judges.html (last visited November 27, 2015); UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, THE JUDGES OF THIS COURT IN ORDER OF SENIORITY, www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_seniority_ list.php (last visited November 27, 2015). xiii Published by GGU Law Digital Commons, 2017 1 Golden Gate University Law Review, Vol. 47, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 4 SENIOR JUDGE JOHN CLIFFORD WALLACE President Nixon nominated Judge Wallace to the Ninth Circuit on May 22, 1972, and the Senate confirmed him on June 28, 1972. Judge Wallace served as Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit from 1991 until 1996. He assumed senior status on April 8, 1996. Judge Wallace received his B.A. from San Diego State University in 1952, and his LL.B. from the Univer- sity of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1955. Judge Wallace served as a Second Class Petty Officer in the United States Navy from 1946 to 1949. After law school, Judge Wallace prac- ticed with Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye in San Diego from 1955 until 1970, when he began his service as a judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, serving until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit in 1972. Judge Wallace maintains his chambers in San Diego, California. SENIOR JUDGE PROCTER RALPH HUG JR. President Carter nominated Judge Hug to the Ninth Circuit on August 29, 1977, and the Senate confirmed him on September 15, 1977. He served as chief judge from 1996 to 2000. He assumed senior status on January 1, 2002. Judge Hug received his B.S. from the University of Nevada, Reno in 1953, and his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1958. Judge Hug served in the United States Navy from 1954 to 1955, ob- taining the rank Lieutenant. After receiving his J.D., he worked in private practice from 1958 to 1977. He was also appointed as Deputy Attorney General for the State of Nevada. In addition, he served as General Coun- sel to the University of Nevada System from 1972 to 1976. Judge Hug maintains his chambers in Reno, Nevada. SENIOR JUDGE MARY M. SCHROEDER President Carter nominated Judge Schroeder to the Ninth Circuit on May 3, 1979, and the Senate confirmed her on September 25, 1979. Judge Schroeder served as chief judge of the Ninth Circuit from 2000 to 2007. She was the Ninth Circuit’s first female chief judge. She assumed senior status on December 31, 2011. Judge Schroeder received her B.A. from Swarthmore College in 1962, and her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School in 1965, where she was one of only six women in her law school class. Judge Schroeder practiced as a trial attorney in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice from 1965 to 1969. She clerked xiv http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol47/iss1/4 2 et al.: Ninth Circuit Judges for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Jesse A. Udall from 1969 to 1970. Judge Schroeder entered the private sector in 1971, working for Lewis and Roca in Phoenix, Arizona until 1975. As a lawyer in Arizona, she chaired the committee that drafted and secured passage of Arizona’s first civil rights law. From 1975 to 1979, Judge Schroeder served on the Ari- zona Court of Appeals. Judge Schroeder also served as Visiting Instruc- tor at the Arizona State University Law School from 1975 to 1976 and in 1978, and as a Lecturer at Duke University in 1995. Judge Schroeder maintains her chambers in Phoenix, Arizona SENIOR JUDGE JOSEPH J. FARRIS President Carter nominated Judge Farris to the Ninth Circuit on July 12, 1979, and the Senate confirmed him on September 26, 1979. Judge Farris assumed senior status on March 4, 1995. Judge Farris received his B.S. from Morehouse College in 1951, his M.S.W. from Atlanta Univer- sity in 1955, and his J.D. from University of Washington in 1958. Judge Farris practiced in the private sector in Seattle from 1958 to 1969. Prior to his appointment to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Farris was a judge for the Washington State Court of Appeals from 1969 to 1979. Judge Farris maintains his chambers in Seattle, Washington. JUDGE HARRY PREGERSON President Carter nominated Judge Pregerson to the Ninth Circuit on August 28, 1979, and the Senate confirmed him on October 31, 1979. Judge Pregerson received his B.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1947, and his LL.B. from University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1950. Judge Pregerson earned a Purple Heart in Okinawa while in the Marine Corps, in which he served as First Lieutenant from 1944 to 1946. After law school, he practiced in the private sector in Los Angeles, Cali- fornia from 1951 to 1965. Thereafter, Judge Pregerson served as a mu- nicipal court judge in 1965 and superior court judge in 1966 in Los Angeles before being appointed as a United States District Court judge for the Central District of California in 1967, where he remained until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit in 1979. Judge Pregerson maintains his chambers in Woodland Hills, California. xv Published by GGU Law Digital Commons, 2017 3 Golden Gate University Law Review, Vol. 47, Iss. 1 [2017], Art. 4 SENIOR JUDGE DORTHY W. NELSON President Carter nominated Judge Nelson to the Ninth Circuit on Sep- tember 28, 1979, and the Senate confirmed her on December 19, 1979. Judge Nelson assumed senior status on January 1, 1995. She received her A.B. in 1950 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and her J.D. in 1953 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. In 1956, she received an LL.M. from the University of Southern California Law School. Judge Nelson began her career at the University of Southern California Law School as a Research Associate Fellow. During this time, she also practiced in the private sector from 1954 to 1957. She continued to work for the University from 1957 to 1980, as an Instructor from 1957 to 1958, Assistant Professor from 1958 to 1961, Associate Professor from 1961 to 1967, Professor from 1967 to 1980, Associate Dean from 1965 to 1967, and Dean from 1967 to 1980. Since 1980, Judge Nelson has been an Adjunct Professor for the University. Judge Nelson maintains her chambers in Pasadena, California. SENIOR JUDGE WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR. President Carter nominated Judge Canby to the Ninth Circuit on April 2, 1980, and the Senate confirmed him on May 21, 1980. On May 23, 1996, Judge Canby assumed senior status. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. from Yale University in 1953, Judge Canby received his LL.B. from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1956. Judge Canby was a Lieutenant in the JAG Corps of the United States Air Force from 1956 to 1958. Judge Canby served as clerk to Justice Charles Whittaker of the United States Supreme Court from 1958 to 1959. He then joined Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Baer, Wolf in St.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
    JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
    [Show full text]
  • Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 46 Article 4 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey March 2016 Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation , Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 46 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. xiii (2016). http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol46/iss1/4 This Introduction is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Golden Gate University Law Review by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 37275-ggl_46-1 Sheet No. 7 Side A 01/13/2016 11:44:49 \\jciprod01\productn\G\GGL\46-1\bio461.txt unknown Seq: 1 13-JAN-16 9:24 et al.: Judges of the Ninth Circuit JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1 CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY R. THOMAS Judge Thomas is currently serving a seven-year term as chief judge. President Clinton nominated Judge Thomas to the Ninth Circuit on July 19, 1995, and the Senate confirmed him on January 2, 1996. He received his B.A. from Montana State University in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 1978. Judge Thomas practiced law with the firm of Moulton, Bellingham, Longo & Mather from 1978 until his appointment to the Ninth Circuit. He served as an Adjunct Instructor at Rocky Mountain College from 1982 to 1995.
    [Show full text]
  • Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules
    ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL RULES November 2, 2020 AGENDA Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules November 2, 2020 1. Opening Business A. Chair’s Remarks and Administrative Announcements (Oral Report) B. ACTION: Review and Approval of Minutes • Draft Minutes of the May 5, 2020 Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules .......................................................23 C. Report of the Rules Committee Staff • Report on the June 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure • Draft Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Meeting of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure ...............49 • Report on the September 2020 Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States • September 2020 Report of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure to the Judicial Conference of the United States (appendices omitted) ............................79 • Rules and Projects Pending Before Congress, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Conference, and the Rules Committees • Chart Tracking Proposed Rules Amendments ...............103 • Legislative Update • Legislation That Directly or Effectively Amends the Federal Rules (116th Congress) ...............................109 2. Draft New Rule 62 (Rules Emergency) A. Reporters’ Memorandum (October 14, 2020) ............................................121 B. Supporting Materials • Draft New Rule 62 and Committee Note .....................................141 • Chart Comparing Draft New Rule 62 with the CARES Act .......153 • Memorandum from Kevin Crenny, Rules
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: the Burger Court’S Flawed Reasoning in Chandler V
    2017 The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Joshua E. Kastenberg University of New Mexico - School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joshua E. Kastenberg, The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy, 8 St. Mary’s Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics 90 (2017). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/592 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the UNM School of Law at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. ARTICLE Joshua Kastenberg The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Abstract. In 1970, the United States Supreme Court issued Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit in which five Justices determined that the federal courts of appeals possessed an administrative authority to manage the district court judges within an appellate court’s respective circuit. The decision enabled the Tenth Circuit to decide the fitness of a judge to preside over cases without a formal motion from a litigant.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: the Burger Court’S Flawed Reasoning in Chandler V
    St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics Volume 8 Number 1 Article 3 May 2018 The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Joshua E. Kastenberg [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej Part of the Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Biography Commons, Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Profession Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Joshua E. Kastenberg, The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy, 8 ST. MARY'S JOURNAL ON LEGAL MALPRACTICE & ETHICS (2018). Available at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/lmej/vol8/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the St. Mary's Law Journals at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics by an authorized editor of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLE Joshua Kastenberg The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Abstract.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Law Judicial Clerks List
    Texas Law Judicial Clerks List This list includes Texas Law alumni who reported their clerkships to the Judicial Clerkship Program – or whose names were published in the Judicial Yellow Book or Martindale Hubbell – and includes those who clerked during the recent past for judges who are currently active. There are some judges and courts for which few Texas Law alumni have clerked – in these cases we have listed alumni who clerked further back or who clerked for judges who are no longer active. Dates following a law clerk or judge’s name indicate year of graduation from the University of Texas School of Law. Retired or deceased judges, or those who has been appointed to another court, are listed at the end of each court section and denoted (*). Those who wish to use the information on this list will need to independently verify the information being used. Federal Courts U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................. 2 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals ............................................................................................. 3 First Circuit Second Circuit Third Circuit Fourth Circuit Fifth Circuit Sixth Circuit Seventh Circuit Eighth Circuit Ninth Circuit Tenth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Federal Circuit District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Courts of Limited Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 9 Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Tax Court U.S. District Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ............................................................ 10 State Courts State Appellate Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ........................................................ 25 State District & County Courts (listed alphabetically by state) ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Targeting Inconsistency: the Why and How of Studying Disagreement in Adjudication*
    Targeting Inconsistency: The Why and How of Studying Disagreement in Adjudication* Ryan Copus† and Ryan Hübert‡ July 21, 2016 Abstract Much of the judicial decision making research has focused on inter-judge inconsistency. How much more likely is a panel of all Democratic appointees to decide in favor of civil rights plaintiffs than is a panel of all Republican appointees? How doesthe presence of a black judge on a panel affect the likelihood that an affirmative action plan will be found constitutional? How large are the inter-judge disparities in asylum grant rates? How inconsistent are social security disability decisions? But despite the attention paid to disagreement, the vast majority of research shares a peculiar feature: it ignores much of judicial disagreement. By coding decisions on a single dimension (e.g., liberal versus conservative or grant versus deny) and grouping judges according to demographic characteristics, researchers are mediating the study of inconsistency through intuitions about the nature of judicial disagreement. For reasons of both theory and policy, we argue for an agnostic, data-driven approach to the study of inconsistency. Using a newly collected dataset of appellate review in the Ninth Circuit, we show how machine-learning methods can help researchers make progress on previously identified challenges to the study of inconsistency. We also briefly discuss how our approach to inconsistency could be used to evaluate adjudication systems and changes to those systems as well as address debates between legal realists and formalists. DRAFT PREPARED FOR 2016 CONFERENCE ON EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES *We thank participants at the 2016 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association and the 2016 Political Economy and Public Law conference as well as Joy Milligan, Alan Kluegel, and Aaron Smyth for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • President Biden to Sign Executive Order...Of the United States The
    BRIEFING ROOM President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States APRIL 09, 2021 • STATEMENTS AND RELEASES President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a bipartisan group of experts on the Court and the Court reform debate. In addition to legal and other scholars, the Commissioners includes former federal judges and practitioners who have appeared before the Court, as well as advocates for the reform of democratic institutions and of the administration of justice. The expertise represented on the Commission includes constitutional law, history and political science. The Commission's purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court's case selection, rules, and practices. To ensure that the Commission's report is comprehensive and informed by a diverse spectrum of views, it will hold public meetings to hear the views of other experts, and groups and interested individuals with varied perspectives on the issues it will be examining. The Executive Order directs that the Commission complete its report within 180 days of its first public meeting. This action is part of the Administration's commitment to closely study measures to improve the federal judiciary, including those that would expand access the court system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Magazine of Ucla School of Law In-Depth Engagement
    THE MAGAZINE OF UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s Centers and Programs Produce Path-breaking Research and Purposeful Reform NINTH CIRCUIT ALUMNI APPOINTMENTS Jacqueline Nguyen ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 217111_Cover_R4.indd 1 9/6/12 10:49 AM contents 38 47 48 ninth circuit student assists new global reach appointments orleans community of student work Alumni Jacqueline Nguyen May Thi Nguyen ’13 Students conduct field ’91 and Paul Watford ’94 returned to New Orleans research in the Democratic are appointed to the U.S. to assist in the wake of Republic of the Congo. Court of Appeals for the the 2010 oil spill and Ninth Circuit. Hurricane Katrina. IN-DEPTH ENGAGEMENT UCLA Law’s centers and programs produce path-breaking research and purposeful reform UCLA School of Law has always pursued a distinctive approach to achieving impact at the local, state, national and international level. At UCLA Law, the mastery of doctrine, skills and theory serves as the foundation for transformative influence through advocacy and service. These priorities are reinforced through the work of the law school’s more than 20 interdisciplinary centers of excellence, which are shaping law and policy and carving an extraordinary path toward lasting change. 217111_Cover_R2.inddU 2 9/5/12 8:11 AM FALL 2012 VOL. 35 NO. 1 51 also inside... 02 Message from the Dean 16 Faculty Scholarship 36th annual 50 Law School Hosts Inaugural NYU-UCLA ucla entertainment symposium Tax Policy Conference CBS Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer 53 UCLA Law Celebrates Law School “Legends” Leslie Moonves was the keynote speaker.
    [Show full text]
  • Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 4 Article 6 May 2019 Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies Carl Tobias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Judges Commons, and the Law and Politics Commons Repository Citation Carl Tobias, Filling the Ninth Circuit Vacancies, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1113 (2019), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss4/6 Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj FILLING THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACANCIES Carl Tobias* ABSTRACT Upon Republican President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit experienced some pressing appellate vacancies, which the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) carefully identified as “judicial emergencies” because the tribunal resolves a massive docket. Last year’s death of the iconic liberal champion Stephen Reinhardt and the late 2017 departure of libertarian former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski—who both assumed pivotal circuit leadership roles over numerous years—and a few of their colleagues’ decision to leave active court service thereafter, mean the tribunal presently confronts four judicial emergencies and resolves most slowly the largest number of appeals. The 2016 and 2018 federal election cycles—which render uncertain the party that will capture the presidency and the Senate at the polls in 2020—show that more posts could open when additional jurists determine that they will change status across the Trump Administration. Nevertheless, striking partisanship will frustrate the effort to appoint Ninth Circuit judges.
    [Show full text]
  • The Misplaced Furor Over the Feeney Amendment As a Threat to Judicial Independence
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 46 (2004-2005) Issue 2 Article 6 November 2004 Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Misplaced Furor Over the Feeney Amendment as a Threat to Judicial Independence David P. Mason Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Repository Citation David P. Mason, Barking Up the Wrong Tree: The Misplaced Furor Over the Feeney Amendment as a Threat to Judicial Independence, 46 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 731 (2004), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol46/iss2/6 Copyright c 2004 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr NOTES BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE: THE MISPLACED FUROR OVER THE FEENEY AMENDMENT AS A THREAT TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE INTRODUCTION ..................................... 733 I. OUTLINE OF THE CONTROVERSY ........................735 A. What Is the Feeney Amendment? .................. 735 B. Implementation of the Feeney Amendment ........... 738 1. The Departmentof Justice ...................... 739 2. The U.S. Sentencing Commission ................ 741 3. The FederalCourts of Appeals .................. 744 C. Response to and Criticism of the Feeney Amendment .. 746 1. CongressionalSupport and Critiques ............. 746 2. Public Critiques: The Press,Academia, and Public Interest Groups ......................... 748 3. FederalJudiciary Response ..................... 752 4. Summary of the Critiquesand the Argument that the Feeney Amendment Is an Attack on Judicial Independence ................................ 756 II. DEFINING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE ................... 757 III. THE OVERSTATED THREAT TO JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE .. 762 A. JudicialIndependence Is Not a Talisman: The Role of Accountability to the Law and Inter-Branch Interdependence ................................ 763 1. JudicialAccountability as Accountability to the Law and the Argument Against Judicial "Policymaking"...............................
    [Show full text]
  • Year-In-Review
    Year-in-Review 2014-15 President’s Message.............................................................................. .2 In the News.............................................................................................................5 Membership............................................................................................................6 2015 NAPABA Convention Highlights............................................................... 10 Awards.................................................................................................................. 12 Regional Conferences ......................................................................................... 14 Annual Lobby Day. .............................................................................................. 16 Policy Resolutions................................................................................................. 18 Amicus Briefs.........................................................................................................19 Special Recognition ............................................................................................. 20 Judicial & Executive Branch Nominations .......................................................... 21 Partnerships ......................................................................................................... .22 Specialty Programs..............................................................................................24 Committees, Networks & Councils... ................................................................
    [Show full text]