9th Circuit Court

* After reading your editorial regarding a bill I’m co-sponsoring to split the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (June 23), I’ve come to one of two conclusions: Either your editorial writers don’t care about the legal hardships caused Montanans and the Northwest by the 9th Circuit, or they can’t see the forest for the trees.

Twice in the past I have supported legislation to split the 9th Circuit, but it was not given fair consideration. In order to better the chances of the bill, I have invoked the Senate privilege of placing holds on all nominees to the court until the bill passes.

This is not “petulance” or “obstructionist behavior,” as you call it. It is intended to demonstrate how seriously I take this matter. People in my state, as well as Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska, are suffering at the hands of the 9th Circuit. It is far and away the largest of all the U.S. circuit courts of appeals, by any measure. The caseload is dominated by Californians, as are the ranks of 9th Circuit judges, whose decisions are influenced by a region with interests different from those of the Northwest.

The 9th Circuit ranks next-to-worst in the duration of pending appeals--as long as 16 months.

Splitting the 9th Circuit is an idea that has been supported by Montana’s governor; the Montana state Legislature, which passed a resolution in favor of dividing the 9th; and the U.S. Department of Justice. On the other hand, it is opposed by 9th Circuit judges and lawyers who would lose their powerful fiefdoms.

SEN. CONRAD BURNS

R-Montana