Talk:United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

message: 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 (). 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)
thread_title:  Appointer information cannot be right 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Appointer information is definitely right 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How many judges? 

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

message: Please can we re-wikify the article so that we don't have so many blind links. Opinions please --Chazz88 17:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Red links are not always bad. They automatically initiate an article request that ends up on WP:AR1 or WP:AR2 after one or two years, respectively. (At least, if I understand the process.) Virtually nothing remains red-linked longer than 18 months, but if the links are removed, no one will know where to put the links when the article is finally created. I agree that it looks bad to have a lot of red links, but the solution isn't to remove the red links -- it's to create articles on those subjects!--chris.lawson 17:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over wikified 

message: ?--Capsela 15:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does clinton has so many appointees? 

message: The table listed the population in thousands.  When I see 54,000 thousands it isn't exactly clear.  So I added three 0s to the end of all of them and just put it as the real number.  ABart26 04:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: While advocates of splitting the Ninth Circuit frequently point to the court's frequent reversal rate, they sometimes mean that the Supreme Court must disproportionately intervene in cases where the Ninth Circuit has sided with an unpopular group.  I added the description of Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), to show that in some cases where the Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit, the Court has done so where the Ninth Circuit has sided with the government.  ---Axios023 06:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  I clarified what I wrote for greater precision.  ---Axios023 04:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent reversals

message: I deleted a reference to a site  maintained by a pro se litigant before the court as evidence of the proposition that the court's unpublished decisions conflict with its published decisions.  That site does not espouse a neutral point of view.  ---Axios023 03:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Coolcaesar 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency of decisions

message: Someone writing in 2003 refuted someone's statement in 2006? Wow. When did we discover this technology? 129.171.233.29 14:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time travel? 

message: Why do Republicans have to constantly inject a political agenda into EVERY Wiki article?Ray Ash 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they're balancing the Democrats doing the same?  Either way people need to observe WP:NPOV. -- Atamachat 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every one? I haven't seen that in evidence. Wikipedia's horrific liberal bias kinda negates that. 64.111.151.124 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's much more likely that you have a conservative bias than that Wikipedia--a worldwide encyclopedia with thousands of editors--has a "horrific liberal bias". Chillowack (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republicans 

message: The section on "most overturned court" is verbatim equivalent to the one at  http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/legal/9th_circuit.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.238.148 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyvio? 

message: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued this news release today. ThreeOneFive (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court of Appeals Mourns Passing of Senior Circuit Judge Warren J. Ferguson 

message: The criticism part is pretty consistent, but a bit long, to the extent that it's maybe not a bad idea to ponder splitting the section into an independent article. ADM (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticism section needs work. It reads more like a persuasive argument to disprove the assumptions than an encyclopedic attempt at explaining what they are. 151.207.244.4 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Senior Judge Melvin T. Brunetti died last week, see .  I've updated the article accordingly.  This also led me to look into the vacancies (although, as  a Senior, Brunetti's death did not cause a vacancy) and I've corrected that section as well.  TJRC (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brunetti's death

message: I came to this page so that I can find out what affect this court's rulings have on the Ninth Circuit. I'm specifically talking about the Prop 8 trial. If this court overturns Prop 8, does that mean same-sex marriage will be legal in the entire Ninth Circuit or just California? 72.106.221.130 (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power 

message: Please note and contribute to this discussion. Billyboy01 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table standardization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120926114549/http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/kozinski102103.htm to http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/kozinski102103.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bybee is retiring, it has been reported elsewhere, but as of July 4, 2019, it is not on Future Judicial Vacancies as listed in the citation.  It will be, of course, but I find it lazy to intentionally create a fake (so far) citation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlCanton (talk • contribs) 00:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The vacancy section lists the reason why the seat came open, not the current status of the former judge. The vacancy was created by Judge Pregerson's decision to take senior status, and when someone is nominated their paperwork will read "vice Harry Pregerson, retired" (as opposed to, for example, "vice Stephen Reinhardt, deceased").  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Vacancies and pending nominations

message: The implied arithmetic in the statement "Some argue the court's high percentage of reversals is illusory, resulting from the circuit hearing more cases than the other circuits. This results in the Supreme Court reviewing a smaller proportion of its cases, letting stand the vast majority of its cases." is either incomplete or incorrect.  Is it the case that the Supreme Court allocates a fixed rate of appeals for each circuit?  If so, that might explain it, but I don't believe it to be the case. Some clarification of this argument is necessary.  Jim Bowery (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Arithmetic In "Rate of overturned decisions" 

message: Judge Tallman moved from Seattle to Coeur d'Alene in the fall of 2018 (source: https://www.cdapress.com/local_news/20181107/students_love_the_law__and_pizza_too). This article was updated at the time but another editor recently changed his duty station back to Seattle. I've corrected this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.131 (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tallman's Relocation 

message: Headings adjusted so that it "makes sense." Also, deleted the word "controversy" to eliminate confusion for those who do not understand what a controversy is. Also, removing unwarranted commentary from a dictionary page which is supposed to provide factual content is no"vandalism" (the deliberate destruction of public property) to any reasonable person.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:300:70:A8EC:944D:4E87:3C0F (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper deletion of section heading (possible vandalism)