Posted date
The good news for often-overturned U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Jones is that he's at least 65 percent less likely to be overturned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That's because starting next month, Jones will take senior status and work on only about 35 percent of his former caseload.
When we last left Jones — apparently auditioning for the new reality show "Law & Order: Reversed and Remanded" — he was being corrected once again by the appeals court, which went so far as to take a case away from him because of bias.
But that's no surprise for a judge who has seemingly allowed his personal views to affect his work on the bench in a number of cases.
In 2012, Jones heard the case attacking Nevada's gay marriage constitutional amendment, wrote a feeble defense of it and was promptly overturned. But when the 9th Circuit later sent it back to him with an order to rule for the plaintiffs, Jones recused himself from the matter entirely.
Jones unconscionably delayed filing his incorrect ruling in a lawsuit filed by nervous Republican supporters of Mitt Romney in 2012, who were seeking to eliminate the ballot option that allows Nevadans to vote for "none of these candidates." With a ballot-printing deadline approaching, the 9th Circuit yanked the case from his court, reversed him and allowed the election to go forward — with "none" as an option.
Jones was bounced from a case last year after showing his bias against allowing out-of-state lawyers to participate in a case. The 9th Circuit said reassigning a case was only done in rare and extraordinary circumstances, but was appropriate in that matter.
But those rare and extraordinary circumstances are getting more common all the time: In an epic public-lands case, Jones has once again been reversed and removed due to bad rulings and bias.
The 9th Circuit said last week that Jones' ruling in favor of the family of sagebrush rebel Wayne Hage presented a "newly minted" and "idiosyncratic" legal theory contravened by precedent. Not only that, Jones' ruling contained a misleading citation of a previous case. The reversal — positively dripping with disdain for Jones' opinion — held that Hage had trespassed on public lands by grazing cattle without permission or paying fees.
"Defendants [the Hage family] openly trespassed on federal land," the appeals court wrote. "Rather than simply resolving the fact-specific inquires as to when and where the cattle grazed illegally, the district court applied an 'easement by necessity' theory that plainly contravenes the law."
By the way, the passage in the ruling in which the 9th Circuit outlines the legal authority of the federal government to own and control land should be must reading for the constitutionally confused cowboys of the Bundy family and their supporters.
In addition to overturning Jones, the 9th Circuit also dismissed two contempt citations that appeals judges said Jones had improperly issued to government workers who were doing their jobs.
"A dispassionate observer would conclude that the district judge harbored animus toward the federal agencies. Unfortunately, the judge's bias and prejudgment are a matter of public record," they wrote.
Unfortunately, it is. Not only has Jones argued openly with the 9th Circuit in his briefs, he's taken to publishing his political opinions, including criticizing federal agencies and even former Attorney General Eric Holder as a person who "selectively enforces laws to further political objectives." Tell the kettle the pot is on the phone …
By taking senior status, Jones will preside over a much smaller number of cases, which will surely help ease the 9th Circuit's workload somewhat. But he'll still be in a position to work mischief until he finally retires for good. Until that day, Judge Robert "Reversed and Remanded" Jones will remain badly in need of adult supervision.
— Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and co-host of the show "PoliticsNOW" airing at 5:30 p.m. Sundays on 8NewsNow. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at 702-387-5276 orSSebelius@reviewjournal.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment