Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 279

Thread: United States Courts of Appeals

  1. #11
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Clashing courts: Law restricts federal judges' ability to intervene in state criminal cases

    By Maura Dolan
    The Los Angeles Times

    In the wake of bombings in the 1990s at the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma City federal building, Congress passed a wide-ranging "effective death penalty" law. One provision was especially contentious: It restricted the ability of federal courts to intervene in state criminal cases.

    Nearly 20 years later, Supreme Court interpretations of the law have robbed federal judges of much of their power to overturn convictions obtained in state court, where the vast majority of criminal defendants are tried. Long considered a safety valve for the unjustly convicted, federal courts are now barred by legal rules from second-guessing state judges in all but the most extreme cases.

    The tensions stirred by the law are increasingly visible on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears state cases from the West. Time after time, 9th Circuit judges find fault with decisions by the California courts, where judges appear on the ballot and often struggle under crushing caseloads.

    But the federal jurists are restrained by the law from acting.

    "We now have to stand by in impotent silence, even though it may appear to us that an innocent person has been convicted," 9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, wrote in June in a Georgetown law review.

    The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act limited the ability of inmates to prevail in federal habeas corpus challenges, the legal means prisoners use to contest their confinement.

    "The collapse of habeas corpus as a remedy for even the most glaring of constitutional violations ranks among the greater wrongs of our legal era," 9th Circuit Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt, a Carter appointee, wrote in a Michigan law review.

    "Once hailed as the Great Writ," Reinhardt wrote, habeas corpus has been transformed over the last two decades "from a vital guarantor of liberty into an instrument for ratifying the power of state courts to disregard the protections of the Constitution."

    Judges on other circuits also have complained about the law. "The Great Writ is dead in this country," Judge James C. Hill, a Ford appointee on the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, wrote in a 2011 dissent.

    Federal judges felt differently about the law when it was passed, said Loyola Law professor Laurie Levenson.

    "Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and there are some very serious cases that are not being dealt with because Congress has tied their hands," Levenson said.

    The law "has taken the federal courts out of the business of habeas corpus," said California Court of Appeal Justice J. Anthony Kline, a Gov. Jerry Brown appointee who has served more than three decades on the court.

    Kozinski has called for its repeal.

    "By and large, state judges do a good job," Kozinski said in an interview. "But we tend to see some of the extreme cases, and everyone makes mistakes. It is so frustrating to see mistakes and not be able to correct them."

    Under the new rules, federal judges may not overturn a state court decision that is merely incorrect. The state ruling must also be unreasonable, "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood … beyond any possibility for fair-minded disagreement," the Supreme Court has said.

    This required deference means state courts increasingly have the final say.

    Some law-and-order groups — and conservatives on the 9th Circuit — see the restrictions as a valuable correction. The California Supreme Court should have the last word because the justices serve at the will of the voters, said Kent Scheidegger, a director of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

    "We can't get rid of Reinhardt," Scheidegger said. "We got rid of Rose Bird."

    Voters ousted the late California chief justice and two liberal colleagues in 1986 after a campaign that focused on the death penalty. Bird never voted for a death sentence. Reinhardt, in an interview, could not recall a death sentence he has voted to confirm in his nearly four decades on the 9th Circuit.

    "State judges don't have the same freedom," Reinhardt said.

    State courts have long upheld criminal verdicts and sentences with the knowledge that a later federal review would be a safety net for the wrongfully convicted, Reinhardt said. Now that the safety net is largely gone, some state judges are calling for closer examination of criminal cases.

    Justice Goodwin Liu, a former UC Berkeley law professor appointed by Brown to the state's highest court, has been trying to push his colleagues to examine trial mistakes more carefully. He has complained in dissents that the California court is out of the norm in upholding so many criminal convictions tainted by legal errors at trial and possible racial bias in jury selection.

    Kline, who serves on a San Francisco-based state appeals court, agreed that California courts rely heavily on rules that permit them to uphold verdicts if they believe trial errors — such as admitting evidence that should have been barred — did not affect the outcome of a case.

    "What is happening in the judicial system is we are becoming more interested in disposing of cases than we are of adjudicating them," Kline said.

    In close cases, state judges are more likely than their federal counterparts to rule against criminal defendants and other unpopular litigants, said NYU Law professor Burt Neuborne. Federal judges have lifetime tenure and cannot be recalled for an impolitic decision.

    When the law is unclear, "state judges will tilt more toward the prosecution," Neuborne said. "They have a tendency in hard cases to be more politically responsive."

    The consternation of the 9th Circuit was evident in a California decision in July. George Gage was convicted of molesting his former stepdaughter when he was married to her mother. The young woman made the charge years after the couple divorced.

    The first trial ended in a hung jury, 10 to 1 for conviction. Gage, protesting his innocence, refused to accept a plea bargain that would have released him in about five years. A second jury convicted him.

    The Los Angeles judge who presided over Gage's trial had doubts about the jury verdict. She reviewed the victim's mental health records and learned that the mother had described her daughter as a "pathological liar." The judge ordered a new trial, but a state appeals court overturned the decision. Another judge sentenced Gage to 70 years in prison.

    Gage, 76, is at San Quentin. "I have interviewed Mr. Gage face to face, and there is no question in my mind … that Mr. Gage is in fact innocent of the charges," Tony Faryar Farmani, Gage's lawyer, told the 9th Circuit during a hearing.

    After listening to a prosecutor's arguments, 9th Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson declared: "None of this gives me more confidence that the conviction is valid."

    Still, the panel unanimously rejected Gage's attempt to challenge his conviction. Judge A. Wallace Tashima said the court was "disturbed" that the state had failed to produce the medical records to help the court determine Gage's possible innocence. But even if Gage were innocent, rules barring successive habeas challenges prevented the panel from intervening, Tashima said.

    "We cannot ignore the Supreme Court's clear teaching," wrote Tashima, a Clinton appointee.

    The Supreme Court has often used scolding language to slap down 9th Circuit judges who overturn state convictions. Some 9th Circuit judges take the rejections in stride. Others dread the possibility of being overturned.

    For the latter, "it takes a lot of courage to grant habeas given the likely reversal," said 9th Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, a Clinton appointee.

    "When we do grant habeas — and it is typically an extraordinary case — even then it is likely to be reversed by the Supreme Court," she said.

    But the Supreme Court has limited time and cannot consider every federal appeals court decision it dislikes. Though restricted, some 9th Circuit panels decide inmate appeals have met the high hurdles set by the Supreme Court.

    In one such case, a three-judge panel ruled last month in favor of an inmate who was 15 when he was interrogated at length by Riverside police and given a polygraph test before being read his rights. The teenager received a 50-year sentence for a 2006 gang killing. A panel of two Republican appointees and one Democrat ordered California to release or retry the inmate, a decision that could be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

    Though many 9th Circuit judges chafe under the 1996 law's restrictions, some say they have no problem deferring to state courts.

    "Federal courts should resist the temptation to retry state court cases," said 9th Circuit Judge Diarmurid O'Scannlain, a Reagan appointee.

    The most recent rebuke to the 9th Circuit came in June, when the Supreme Court overturned a ruling written by Reinhardt.

    Hector Ayala, convicted of a 1985 triple murder during the robbery of an auto body shop in San Diego, appealed on the grounds that a prosecutor at his trial struck all the African American and Latino prospective jurors. When the defense objected, the judge allowed the prosecutor to explain his reasons privately and accepted them. Under the Constitution, race may not be considered in picking a jury.

    The California Supreme Court upheld the verdict 15 years ago in a 5-2 decision. Retired Chief Justice Ronald M. George, joined by another Republican appointee, dissented, calling the majority decision "an unprecedented conclusion" that allowed the defense to be excluded from "a crucial portion of jury selection."

    In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court chided the 9th Circuit for interfering so many years after the conviction and failing to follow the California Supreme Court decision.

    "We can reverse almost nothing these days," Reinhardt said.

    http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1.../p2p-84368576/

  2. #12
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Gov. Doug Ducey wants Arizona out of the 9th Circuit

    Gov. Doug Ducey is spearheading a new push to remove Arizona from the overworked and backlogged 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Citing an estimated 14,000 pending court cases, nearly three times the next busiest circuit's caseload, Ducey is working with fellow Arizona Republicans U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake and U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon on federal legislation that would revisit the idea of restructuring the 9th Circuit so that the state could count on swifter and more efficient judicial service.

    The San Francisco-based and California-dominated 9th Circuit also includes Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Idaho and Montana. The 9th Circuit has long been derided as too liberal by some conservatives.

    “The Ninth Circuit is by far the most overturned and overburdened court in the country, with a 77 percent reversal rate," Ducey said in a written statement to The Arizona Republic. "In 2010, it had three times as many reversals as most circuits had cases before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, due to its voluminous caseload and disproportionate size, the Ninth Circuit has an abysmal turnaround time of over 15 months for an average ruling – a figure that’s only going to grow as the docket does."

    Ducey mainly is focusing on the logistical problems related to the court's massive caseload.

    In an Oct. 30 letter to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Ducey laid out the case for reforming the 9th Circuit, noting that recommendations for changes date back at least to 1973. He pointed to retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's previous suggestion that Arizona be moved to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming and Utah as well as parts of Yellowstone National Park in Montana and Idaho.

    Ducey asked Ryan and McConnell to "entertain appropriate legislation" and convene hearings for the "long-overdue reform."

    "To that end, Congress should specifically consider reorganizing the Ninth Circuit by realigning the District of Arizona with the Tenth Circuit, or by creating a new circuit court of appeals consisting of Arizona and other non-coastal states," Ducey wrote.

    Ducey was alerted to the 9th Circuit situation by former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who oversaw Ducey's transition into office following his 2014 election. Kyl, who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked for years on the 9th Circuit issue, and offered a number of legislative proposals. Hearings were held in the mid-2000s on proposals to split the 9th Circuit, but ultimately Congress did not move forward.

    In 2007, Kyl collaborated with U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., another influential Judiciary Committee member, to get one more judge added to the circuit. That brought the number of active judgeships to its current 29. At the time, adding the extra judge was viewed as a minor gesture to help address the court's workload.

    Any legislation to reform the 9th Circuit introduced this year also could wind up being largely symbolic given the long-standing political hurdles on Capitol Hill.

    "It's very hard to do politically because you're fighting California," Kyl, who did not seek re-election in 2012, told The Arizona Republic on Wednesday.

    "... The California bar association people oppose it. They just have a different view," Kyl said. "They would rather be the big dog in the biggest circuit. We find ourselves at a disadvantage in that situation. The circuit is so big; it's bigger than all of the other circuits and it's bigger than some of the other circuits combined. They have a huge workload, and it's a very unruly organization to try to manage properly."

    Kyl said the real solution is to split the 9th Circuit, rather than carving out Arizona and adding the state to the 10th Circuit.

    "You don't want to go into the 10th Circuit -- believe me, the 10th Circuit doesn't want that," Kyl said. "That's Albuquerque and Denver and so on, and they like being the big dogs in their circuit. And besides that, the 9th is so big that even when you divide it in half, you're still bigger than some of the other circuits."

    Others involved in the latest effort agree that it's a debate worth having.

    Flake told The Republic he believes the odds of success are better than they've been in the past, but acknowledged obstacles, "mostly judges who don't want to give up any of their portfolio."

    There's no reason why the people of Arizona should have to put up with delayed justice, Flake said.

    On the House side, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has indicated to Salmon that he is willing to hold a hearing on the topic. Issa, a friend of Salmon's, is the chairman of the relevant House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

    http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...cuit/79417258/

  3. #13
    Senior Member CnCP Addict johncocacola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    643
    Make a 12th Circuit court of appeals that oversees Arizona, Nevada, Idaho and Montana.

  4. #14
    Moderator Dave from Florida's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    810
    Another important legislative action that should have been done years ago. The 9th Circuit handles Hawaii and Guam also.

  5. #15
    Senior Member CnCP Legend Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,795
    Related

    Former Sixth Circuit and Kentucky Federal Judge Boyce F. Martin Jr. has died

    Boyce F. Martin Jr., an unapologetic liberal judge who in 34 years on the 6th U.S. Court of Appeals wrote more than 1,500 opinions, including one permitting affirmative action as well as the nation's first appellate decision affirming what is known as Obamacare, died Wednesday. He was 80 and had been in failing health.

    His death was confirmed by his son-in-law, Neil Mellen.

    When Martin retired in 2013, prominent litigator Sheryl Snyder, a former state bar president, called Martin "one of the giants of the Kentucky judiciary," citing in part his service from 1976 to 1979 as the first chief judge on Kentucky's Court of Appeals.

    Martin, a Democrat who was appointed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, clashed with conservatives on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, most notably with his Louisville colleague, Judge Danny Boggs, who once wrote that Martin and fellow liberals tampered with rules to delay executions of criminals and would issue a stay "based on a hot dog label."

    He vehemently opposed the death penalty, and while saying he was bound to follow the law and Supreme Court ruling, in a 2005 dissent he said that based on his long experience as a judge, "only one conclusion is possible – that the death penalty in this country is arbitrary, biased and so fundamentally flawed at its very core that it is beyond repair."

    In a 2006 dissent, he argued it was unfair and illogical to execute one defendant while sparing another who was just as responsible.

    “Jason Getsy and John Santine are not hypothetical players in a criminal law final exam,” Martin wrote. “They are real people who committed real crimes, indeed, the same crimes. That Getsy will be put to death while Santine will be spared … I find unconscionable, even as I remain bound to apply the laws of this court and of the Supreme Court."

    http://www.courier-journal.com/story...died/83038734/
    "There is a point in the history of a society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it." Friedrich Nietzsche

  6. #16
    Moderator MRBAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Capital Region NY
    Posts
    865
    I missed it initially because of the long weekend, but the 9th Circuit got another smackdown in a murder case in an opinion released on 5/31.

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
    DEBORAH K. JOHNSON, WARDEN v. DONNA
    KAY LEE
    ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
    STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15–789. Decided May 31, 2016

    It's worth a read - it's only 7 pages, but nearly every paragraph raises a point which the 9th Circuit erred on.

    The summary order reads:

    “A State’s procedural rules are of vital importance to the orderly administration of its criminal courts; when a federal court permits them to be readily evaded, it undermines the criminal justice system.” Here, the Ninth Circuit permitted California prisoners to evade a well-established procedural bar that is adequate to bar federal habeas review. The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered."

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...5-789_08m1.pdf

  7. #17
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Green Light for the Habeas Fast Track

    By Kent Scheidegger
    crimeandconsequences.com

    When the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was enacted, the "fast track" under Chapter 154 was thought to be among the primary reforms. In essence, states which provided qualified and adequately funded counsel for their state collateral reviews in capital cases (which is not constitutionally required) were promised an expedited trip through federal habeas corpus.

    Many obstacles have prevented the implementation of this chapter as originally conceived. First, the original chapter had a hostile reception in the courts, as the courts which would be subject to its deadlines misconstrued it to avoid applying it. In 2006, Congress amended the law to abrogate some specific misinterpretations and to take the decision of whether a state qualified away from the conflicted habeas courts and give it to the U.S. Attorney General with review by the D.C. Circuit. The AG was further charged with adopting regulations to implement the statute.

    Surprisingly, under the Bush Administration Attorney General Mukasey dragged his feet and did not issue regulations until the very end of the Administration. AG Holder then caved in to a legal challenge, rescinded the regulations, and dragged his feet issuing new ones. The new ones give the defense much more than it is entitled to, including a patently illegal five-year expiration date on the certification, but two organizations of defense lawyers filed suit against the regulations anyway, steering the case to their favorite judge.

    Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California issued an injunction against implementation of the regulations. After a very leisurely appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel ruled unanimously that she had no jurisdiction to do so.

    First, organizations of defense lawyers have no standing to attack the regulations. They are not injured by them.

    Second, an attack on the regulations is premature until they have been applied to a particular application.

    That decision was issued 10 months ago. Since then, the plaintiffs have sought rehearing, rehearing en banc, and a stay of mandate from the Ninth Circuit, all of which were denied. Then they filed a bizarre pleading entitled, "En Banc Motion to Stay the Mandate." There is no such procedure. The court generously construed this as a motion to reconsider the panel's previous denial, rather than sanctioning them for a frivolous pleading, and denied it.

    Then the plaintiffs filed a certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the high court to recall and stay the mandate. Today the court denied that motion.

    So, Judge Wilken has the mandate of the Ninth Circuit "to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction." All requests to stay it have been denied. This illegal order is no longer a barrier, and the pending applications of Texas and Arizona for certification can proceed.

    And, thanks to all the illegitimate delays, they will proceed before Jeff Sessions's Department of Justice and not Eric Holder's or Loretta Lynch's. The cloud does have a silver lining.

    http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/...-fas.html#more

  8. #18
    Senior Member Member Big Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    120
    Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’

    As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.

    Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.

    They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.

    Right now, Flake said, the circuit is far too sprawling.

    “It represents 20 percent of the population -- and 40 percent of the land mass is in that jurisdiction. It’s just too big,” Flake told Fox News on Wednesday. “We have a bedrock principle of swift justice and if you live in Arizona or anywhere in the 9th Circuit, you just don’t have it.”

    Flake says it typically takes the court 15 months to hand down a decision.

    “It’s far too long,” he added.

    Conservatives have mocked the 9th Circuit for years, often calling it the “Nutty 9th” or the “9th Circus,” in part because so many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    The court has a reputation as one of the most liberal in the country, in large part because of its makeup. Eighteen of the court’s 25 active judges have been appointed by Democrats. Former President George W. Bush appointed six justices, while former President Barack Obama appointed seven.

    Under Flake’s bill, the new circuit would cover Nevada, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Arizona and Alaska, leaving the 9th with three Pacific states as well as the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam.


    A separate House version introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs and four other Arizona Republicans would leave Washington state in the 9th Circuit.

    Congressional efforts to split the circuit go back to 1941.

    “The problem is the judges in the 9th Circuit, particularly the liberal judges, don’t want to give up any of their jurisdiction,” Flake said.

    Congress created the court in 1891. At the time, the area was sparsely inhabited – only four percent of the U.S. population lived in the area compared to today’s 20 percent.

    In 1998, Congress appointed a commission to reexamine the federal appeals courts’ structure. The commission ultimately recommended against splitting the 9th Circuit.

    But carving up the large circuit isn’t out of the realm of possibility. In 1929, Congress split the 8th Circuit to accommodate a population boom and increased caseloads.

    Democratic strategist Joe Lestingi pushed back on accusations the court leans left.

    “We don’t complain about courts being too conservative,” he told Fox News. “The truth is… the liberal side of that court provides the conflict we need to settle our most basic disagreements.”

    He added that the 9th Circuit’s track record of rulings being overturned -- sometimes unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court -- is all part of the judicial process.

    “If the Supreme Court wasn’t going to overturn lower courts' decisions, then we don’t need a Supreme Court anymore,” Lestingi argued.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-momentum.html

  9. #19
    Senior Member CnCP Legend FFM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,363
    Mississippi Judge Retiring From US Appeals Court in October

    JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — A longtime judge is planning to retire from the federal appeals court that handles cases from Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

    The Clarion-Ledger reports (http://on.thec-l.com/2mQ3icQ) Judge Grady Jolly of Mississippi says in a letter that he intends to step down from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on his 80th birthday in October.

    Jolly is one of four 5th Circuit judges based in Mississippi.

    President Donald Trump will nominate a successor to the 22-member court.

    President Ronald Reagan chose Jolly in 1982, when Jolly was in private law practice in Jackson.

    Jolly earned his law degree from the University of Mississippi in 1962. After working for the National Labor Relations Board in North Carolina, he returned to Mississippi as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1964 to 1967.

    https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...urt-in-october

  10. #20
    Administrator Moh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    13,014
    Trump to nominate federal Judge Amul Thapar to 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

    BY BILL ESTEP
    The Lexington Herald-Leader

    A federal judge who hears cases in Lexington will be nominated as a federal appeals judge, President Donald J. Trump announced Monday.

    Trump will nominate U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the White House said in a news release.

    The court hears appeals from Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan.

    Thapar, 47, became the nation’s first federal district judge of South Asian descent when the U.S Senate confirmed him in late 2007. His parents immigrated from India.

    Thapar, who received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley, served as the chief federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Kentucky before taking the district bench. He also served as a prosecutor in Southern Ohio and worked in private practice.

    He hears cases in Lexington, Covington, London and Pikeville.

    The Senate will have to confirm Thapar to the appellate bench, but with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as a strong supporter, observers said that won’t be a problem.

    “Throughout his already impressive career of public service, Amul has shown an incredible intellect and an unshakable dedication to the law,” McConnell said in a news release. “He has earned the respect of his colleagues, and I know that he will bring to the Sixth Circuit the same wisdom, fairness, and ability that he has shown on the District Court. President Trump made an outstanding choice and I look forward to the Senate’s confirmation of Judge Thapar.”

    Thapar’s office declined comment on the nomination.

    It’s not clear when the Senate will schedule a confirmation hearing for Thapar.

    Before taking office in January, Trump had put Thapar on his short list for a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, but chose Judge Neal Gorsuch instead.

    ​Thapar is conservative and is seen as close to the Federalist Society, which promotes interpreting laws and the Constitution as written.

    His father, Raj Thapar, who owns a heating and air-conditioning supply business in Toledo, told The (Louisville) Courier-Journal in December that his son “nearly wouldn’t speak to me after I voted for Barack Obama.”

    However, lawyers across the political spectrum praised Thapar as a highly intellectual, thoughtful and hard-working judge.

    Thapar treats litigants fairly and decides cases on the merits, said Mark Wohlander, a Lexington attorney who was an assistant federal prosecutor under Thapar and has appeared before him frequently since he took the bench.

    “Judge Thapar is by far one of the most brilliant jurists I’ve appeared before or worked with,” said Wohlander, a political conservative. “He’s the fairest man I’ve ever appeared before.”

    Wohlander said the words inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building, “Equal Justice Under Law,” define Thapar.

    Louisville attorney Kent Wicker, who said he is a political liberal, said Thapar’s political ideology doesn’t show up in how he handles cases and reaches decisions.

    “His judicial philosophy is to get the right answer and do the right thing,” Wicker said. “He tries to follow the law.”

    Prestonburg attorney Ned Pillersdorf said he differs philosophically with Thapar on some fronts — noting that Thapar is very conservative in criminal cases — but that he has “a world of respect for his intellect and his integrity” and that Thapar will make a great appellate judge.

    http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/a...#storylink=cpy

Page 2 of 28 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •