January 27, 2011
Another 9th Circuit Smackdown from the Supremes
The only certain things in life are death, taxes, and the U.S. Supreme Court delivering (with metronomic regularity) a rolled-up-per-curiam-opinion, smack-on-the-snout "No! Bad dog!" correction to the incorrigible, hard-left members of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the latest "Bad court!" reversal, Swarthout v. Cooke, the U.S. Supreme Court delivers a stinging rebuke to a panel led by the execrable Justice Stephen Rheinhardt, ACLU head Ramona Ripston's lesser half.
The facts are these:
Two convicted killers were denied parole. They appealed those decisions to the California Supreme Court; their appeal was denied. The killers then sought a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts, which was granted.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision, holding that the governor was wrong to rely on the heinous nature of the murder in denying one killer parole, and that the state court was wrong to deny parole to the other murderer as a result of incorrectly deciding he still presented a threat to public safety.
The U.S. Supreme Court was not amused.
In granting habeas relief based on its conclusion that the state courts had misapplied California’s “some evidence” rule, the Ninth Circuit must have assumed either that federal habeas relief is available for an error of state law, or that correct application of the State’s “some evidence” standard is required by the federal Due Process Clause. Neither assumption is correct.
[...]
The Ninth Circuit’s questionable finding that there was no evidence in the record supporting the parole denials is irrelevant unless there is a federal right at stake, as§2254(a) requires.
The short of the matter is that the responsibility for assuring that the constitutionally adequate procedures governing California’s parole system are properly applied rests with California courts, and is no part of the Ninth Circuit’s business.
The opinion's only eight pages long, filled with barely concealed frustration. And there's even a concurrence from Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
There's a reason some of us call it the Ninth Circus.
Posted by Mike Lief at January 27, 2011 07:06 AM
| TrackBack