If that were the case, then it would probably stand. The Ninth usually has the lowest, or among the lowest, reversal rate of any district: https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...

You hear a lot of lies to the contrary that it has the highest number of reversals, which is misleadingly irrelevant because the Ninth also has by far the greatest number of decisions. It's like saying that New York City has more violent crimes than El Paso, which utterly ignores the population difference between the two.

▲

3 days ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

abduhl 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Your link says that the 9th is the most reversed circuit both in terms of raw reversals (196) and as a rate (79.4%).

▲

fn-mote 3 days ago | parent [-]

Include the time frame when you talk about this.

2007-present, in this case

People making conclusions should look at the data, though.

In this case, every ciruit has a 64+% reversal rate, the sixth has a reversal rate almost identical to the 9th. I have no idea what a significant difference would be.

Maybe someone can explain a set of assumptions and the resulting variance.

▲

abduhl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

I didn't choose the data set or the link, perhaps your admonishment should be levied against GP.

I agree that people should look at the data before making conclusions, which is why I posted that the data directly contradicted GP's claim that the 9th "usually has the lowest, or among the lowest, reversal rate of any district." It doesn't. Based on the data, it has not only the highest reversal rate but also the highest amount of reversals. I take no position on whether the 9th's reversal rate is significantly different than any other circuit's other than to note that it is the highest by all reported metrics and that when you hear that fact, it isn't a "lie" (as characterized by the GP).

▲

Larrikin 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That makes everything seem completely arbitrary and not based on anything besides personal feelings

	▲	BrenBarn 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You have just described law in the United States. :-)

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> 2007-present, in this case

'07 seems arbitrary. 2017 would be a better date, given that's when Gorsuch flipped the Court conservative. (Though it really went full dumbfuck when Barrett started giving Alito and Thomas cover.)