When judges start inventing law

This goofy ruling is why the 9th Circuit gets reversed more than any other federal appellate court. If entering the country illegally is a crime - and it is (for the slower members of the 9th, the words "illegal entry" are a hint) - then encouraging illegal entry is considered solicitation of a criminal offense. Solicitation of a criminal offense is itself a crime - unless, apparently, you are an agenda-crazed judge in the 9th Circuit. And that does not criminalize otherwise innocuous speech - you can induce, solicit, encourage to your heart's content just about any behavior that is not criminal. As a lawyer, I am not unaccustomed to breathtakingly stupid judicial behavior, but it really pi$$es me off when judges start inventing law for the sole purpose of subverting sensible laws and encouraging lawless behavior. 


If you look at the percentages racked up between 2001 and 2017, the Ninth has a reversal/overturn rate of a cool 80 percent. Another metric is the fact that the Supremes grant certiorari on more than twice as many Ninth Circuit cases each year than in almost any other circuit - which makes sense, because the Ninth disposes of more cases than any other circuit. When I took legal research and writing in 1993, the professor, who was not trying to be funny, said that we were to use the Ninth decisions as persuasive authority only if we were unable to find any other Supreme Court or circuit court cases that were on point. The Ninth is a squirrel cage, especially when there is an overrepresentation of judges from California, and fewer from Oregon and Washington - although those states are pretty weird too, anymore.


We have enough people who are distrustful of the justice system and this kind of crap makes it hard to argue that they shouldn't feel that way.