The article talks about the idea of the Federal Circuit "overruling" the Supreme Court by gradually chipping away at the principles behind SC precedent.
Interestingly, similar charges have been made of the DC Circuit with regard to the Supreme Court's national security jurisprudence, especially Boumediene v. Bush.[1] (The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has essentially become the US terrorism court — because among other things — they are the only court allowed to hear Guantanamo detainee appeals. But DC Circuit judges do hear normal cases as well.)
So it seems to me the problem with CAFC is not just in its "specialist" judges but also in allowing the law in one field to develop almost exclusively in one court. This also makes Supreme Court supervision much more difficult.
Comments
The article talks about the idea of the Federal Circuit "overruling" the Supreme Court by gradually chipping away at the principles behind SC precedent.
Interestingly, similar charges have been made of the DC Circuit with regard to the Supreme Court's national security jurisprudence, especially Boumediene v. Bush.[1] (The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has essentially become the US terrorism court — because among other things — they are the only court allowed to hear Guantanamo detainee appeals. But DC Circuit judges do hear normal cases as well.)
So it seems to me the problem with CAFC is not just in its "specialist" judges but also in allowing the law in one field to develop almost exclusively in one court. This also makes Supreme Court supervision much more difficult.
1.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1838402
That's a very interesting point. Thanks for the article.