4 ms·
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 pos
by 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 agoIm 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 agoI 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.