Talk:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

feel free to add more examples; do -not- delete valid information

Just because information is valid does not mean it should appear in an article. The Ninth Circuit has been around for a long time, listing a single case from June 2002 and implying that it is the only controversial case or somehow demonstrative of anything at all does not illustrate good editorial practice. It dates the article horribly. Boiling down the Ninth Circuit to a single controversial case is deceptive and leads to the perception (POV) that they generate cases likely to be overturned, that retired judges are more often involved in those cases, etc. I'm working on finding a longer list of significant cases and I will not be listing that case unless it's clear that it's one of the most significant ones since the court's inception. Wikipedia is not about reporting current events. Daniel Quinlan 02:46, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Please do read the policy, Daniel:

I've read the policy. I think it's actually a bit incomplete in its admonishment of turning articles into news reports since it doesn't address the problem of excessive present-day current events in articles. Daniel Quinlan 15:15, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not: A news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. However, creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea. See current events for some examples. ...When updating articles with recent news, authors should use the past-tense in such a way that the news will still make sense when read years from now. [emph. mine]

This, and you, are addressing something completely different than my objection. I was not objecting to writing in present tense. Daniel Quinlan 15:15, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

What this policy refers to is articles of the type "On Monday, President Bush announced that he will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq." Articles should be written in an encyclopedic manner, that is, in such a fashion that the information within them continues to make sense without requiring frequent minor updates. That's also why we have redirects such as As of 2003 in place which allow us to quickly correct information which is no longer up to date (by checking "What links here" on that redirect in 2004). Wikipedia was excellent in integrating up to date information during the Sep. 11 attacks (even though it was still a very small project then) and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in real-time. Aside from that, the court decision in question is hardly a matter of up-to-the-minute news, being made in 2002.

I agree with you, of course, that the article should include many of the court's historical cases. However, articles often start with just a fraction of the information about the subject -- that does not mean that this information should be removed until the rest of the information is added. Articles do not need to be complete at any given point in time (and in fact probably never are). See also Wikipedia:Perfect stub article, which goes so far to suggest starting a stub article provocatively.—Eloquence 02:56, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, but I'll concede that you've made yours in the article. Daniel Quinlan 15:15, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the United States.. In total numbers, that is correct. In terms or percentages of cases which are heard by the US Supreme Court, that is not correct. A larger percentage of cases is overturned from other courts than from the Ninth. It's only that more cases from the Ninth get moved up to the Supreme Court that it has so many cases overturned. And in the latest term, only one more than the next-overturned, which one it is, I don't recall right now. RickK 06:19, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes and no. First, more cases are heard from the Ninth Court in general. Many fewer are heard from other courts, so it is easy for another court to bat a high percentage if only a few cases are being heard. I believe the speculation is that the Supreme Court keeps a much closer eye on the Ninth Circuit than other courts. If you also look at the last 5 or 10 years, the statistics are also much clearer that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned. By way of analogy, it's like the Yankees. They don't win the World Series every year, but they are the best team this last decade. Sure, if you only look at a single year or two, someone else might have a higher percentage, but the gap widens over time.

Nevertheless, let's include some good statistics! Per-decade might be about right, I think. Daniel Quinlan 06:44, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

1 Appointer information cannot be right 2 Appointer information is definitely right 3 How many judges? 4 Rewrite

Appointer information cannot be right

The article says, speaking of judges on the court in 2001:

18 were appointed by Democrat Presidents (4 by Jimmy Carter and 14 by Bill Clinton) and 7 were appointed by Republican Presidents (3 by Ronald Reagan, 4 by the George H. W. Bush)

It then goes on to say that a 2002 opinion for the majority was written by a Nixon appointee. Unless Nixon appointed someone to the court between 2001 and 2002, either he was not a Nixon appointee, or the above list of who appointed how many judges is wrong. --Delirium 23:24, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Verified that Goodwin was appointed by Nixon ([1] (http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/goodwin.htm)). The other info should probably be commented out until someone can find a place to re-check the facts and alter it to be accurate. However I won't edit the page while it's protected; if someone could track down a disinterested admin to do it that would be great. - Hephaestos 23:32, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Appointer information is definitely right

I double-checked the information during my last edit spurt on this article. Goodwin is an inactive (read: semi-retired) judge. The 18/7 figure is for active judges who hear the vast majority of cases. I'll make a note in the article if there already isn't one. Daniel Quinlan 23:36, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks. - Hephaestos 23:55, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How many judges?

The first paragraph claims the court has 24 judges. The second claims it has 27. Which is correct? — (unsigned contribution by 62.253.130.205 on August 19, 2004

This issue was cleaned up by Postdlf on that same August 19. The circuit has 28 permanent judgeships. I'd like to do some research confirming this, but there appear to be 25 judges at the moment. — DLJessup 20:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Frustrated by the article as it was, I rewrote it in anticipation of adding the charts and other info standard to courts of appeals pages. I welcome your feedback. --Saucy Intruder 20:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is beginning to look much better after your edits. --Coolcaesar 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)