Pamela MacLean has this article in law.com on reaction to circuit-split proposals at the Ninth Circuit conference in Hawaii. (Hat tip: SCOTUSblog.) They're mostly against it. There also appears to be some consternation over an article by Brian Fitzpatrick noting that the mathematical probability of "extreme" decisions is lower with a smaller circuit. (It is, but only if the two circuits have similar ideological spectra, which most of the presently floating split proposals would not produce.)

Of the potential for "extremist" decisions in a large circuit, Chief Judge Mary Schroeder said, "You have got to be kidding. We don't appoint the judges, the president does. You don't split up a court because you don't like the decisions it makes."

True, Judge Schoeder, you don't appoint the judges, but you and your colleagues do decide when to grant rehearing en banc, and you haven't done that enough. Here's a start. Make a list of all the Ninth Circuit decisions reversed unanimously or summarily by the Supreme Court in the last three terms. Those are, by and large, patent errors that you should have fixed en banc but didn't. Not all, but most.

See what those cases have in common. When more panel decisions like that come up, fix them en banc. That would go a long way toward correcting the Ninth's image as an extreme court.