3 ms·

Not knowing much about this and just going from your link (honestly I don't even know which side the 5th and 9th are on)... 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close

Not knowing much about this and just going from your link (honestly I don't even know which side the 5th and 9th are on)... 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close. 5/10 seems to give the 9th one of the lower rates of reversal, given that so many of them are 1/1.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close That’s only the recent term. Scroll down to the first vertical bar graph. Sixth is reversed over 80% of the time, Ninth right behind it. Fifth, Eighth and the State Courts comprise the second cohort in the 70-ish percent range. Note that these are conditional probabilities; we’re observing cases SCOTUS took on.
- Forgeties79 2y ago
  This reads to me like cherry-picking. I don't know why we should just ignore the most recent trends in favor of older ones.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Because one single term departure from a mean isn't much of a trend. when you have a 17 year data set and a 1 year data set, I dont think it is very reasonable to limit examination to a single year unless there is a reason why that might be different. The most recent year is in the larger data set.
    - Forgeties79 2y ago
      I can concede that somewhat, fair point. Frankly I shouldn’t get bogged down in these numbers because as I said in another comment: I'm not sure how the 9th possibly having issues somehow undermines the problems with the 5th. This is pretty textbook "whataboutism." I'm also not sure why reversals are the metric we are going off of here to decide if a court is partisan/legislating from the bench. You're asserting that as if it's self-evident.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        Im not asserting anything about partisanship- that would have been someone else. That said, I agree this isnt a contest. "whataboutism" is only useful insofar as it demonstrates that this is not a phenomenon exclusive to either the 5th OR 9th circuits. Having sent that topic to bed, the question is what (if anything) reversals mean. To me, they simply mean that the courts are in disagreement with the SCOTUS. Circuits have different opinions, just as the supreme justices have different opinions. I dont think it is unreasonable the presume that the SCOTUS legal philosophy falls between that of the most liberal circuit and most conservative circuits. This is not in of itself unexpected or a condemnation. If every court was in perfect harmony, we wouldn't even need the appeals process. One can ask if the legal opinions held by the 5th or 9th courts pass the red face credibility test, but I agree reversals alone wont tell you that. you would have to get into the weeds.
        Forgeties79 2y ago
        I don’t think that reversals meaningfully tell us anything that answers the question we are engaging in. At best they are a small piece of the equation.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> 5/10 and 8/10 are not all that close That’s only the recent term. Scroll down to the first vertical bar graph. Sixth is reversed over 80% of the time, Ninth right behind it. Fifth, Eighth and the State Courts comprise the second cohort in the 70-ish percent range. Note that these are conditional probabilities; we’re observing cases SCOTUS took on.

Forgeties79 2y ago
This reads to me like cherry-picking. I don't know why we should just ignore the most recent trends in favor of older ones.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Because one single term departure from a mean isn't much of a trend. when you have a 17 year data set and a 1 year data set, I dont think it is very reasonable to limit examination to a single year unless there is a reason why that might be different. The most recent year is in the larger data set.
  - Forgeties79 2y ago
    I can concede that somewhat, fair point. Frankly I shouldn’t get bogged down in these numbers because as I said in another comment: I'm not sure how the 9th possibly having issues somehow undermines the problems with the 5th. This is pretty textbook "whataboutism." I'm also not sure why reversals are the metric we are going off of here to decide if a court is partisan/legislating from the bench. You're asserting that as if it's self-evident.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Im not asserting anything about partisanship- that would have been someone else. That said, I agree this isnt a contest. "whataboutism" is only useful insofar as it demonstrates that this is not a phenomenon exclusive to either the 5th OR 9th circuits. Having sent that topic to bed, the question is what (if anything) reversals mean. To me, they simply mean that the courts are in disagreement with the SCOTUS. Circuits have different opinions, just as the supreme justices have different opinions. I dont think it is unreasonable the presume that the SCOTUS legal philosophy falls between that of the most liberal circuit and most conservative circuits. This is not in of itself unexpected or a condemnation. If every court was in perfect harmony, we wouldn't even need the appeals process. One can ask if the legal opinions held by the 5th or 9th courts pass the red face credibility test, but I agree reversals alone wont tell you that. you would have to get into the weeds.
      - Forgeties79 2y ago
        I don’t think that reversals meaningfully tell us anything that answers the question we are engaging in. At best they are a small piece of the equation.