Does Anyone Realy Respect the Ninth Circus Court?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench

And before anyone says this is a conservative SC

Quote

The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.

The Ninth Circus is a joke






http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/02/hint-supreme-court-rejects-rulings-row-west-coast-bench/#

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

I'll start by saying that the article's points seem reasonable.
In the interest of balance in this thread - not a rebuttal; just balance - I'll note, since it hasn't been yet, that the article's final paragraph also says:

Quote

Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th [Circuit] Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.

[billvon 3,120]

>Does Anyone Realy Respect the Ninth Circus Court?

Apparently the Supreme Court has more respect for them than they do most other circuit courts. (Of course, what do they know about law compared to some guys on a skydiving forum?)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'll start by saying that the article's points seem reasonable.
In the interest of balance in this thread - not a rebuttal; just balance - I'll note, since it hasn't been yet, that the article's final paragraph also says:

Quote

Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th [Circuit] Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.

Worth pointing out

But

I would submit that 5 rulings (in a row) against a court where all justices were in agreement is well beyond the norm (and maybe with no precedent)

Since I do not normally follow this kind of thing I really wonder about your thoughts on this

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Does Anyone Realy Respect the Ninth Circus Court?

Apparently the Supreme Court has more respect for them than they do most other circuit courts. (Of course, what do they know about law compared to some guys on a skydiving forum?)

How so?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>Does Anyone Realy Respect the Ninth Circus Court?

Apparently the Supreme Court has more respect for them than they do most other circuit courts. (Of course, what do they know about law compared to some guys on a skydiving forum?)

How so?

Leave the lawyerin.... to the lawyers .... not to Lush Rimjob.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Does Anyone Realy Respect the Ninth Circus Court?

Apparently the Supreme Court has more respect for them than they do most other circuit courts. (Of course, what do they know about law compared to some guys on a skydiving forum?)

How so?

Leave the lawyerin.... to the lawyers .... not to Lush Rimjob.

Your assumptions betray you yet again

Since you listen to him
Did he talk about this today?

It seems the article I linked came out hours after he was off the air

So?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Note that the SCOTUS reverses 71 percent of all cases it hears. This should be a noteworthy thing that explains some of what happens with the certiorari process.

The SCOTUS doesn't have to hear a case. Something like 1% of cases are heard by the SCOTUS. You need four justices to vote to hear a case put before the SCOTUS. You can bet that cases where the court agrees that everything looks cool won't want to mess with it. It's the cases where there are some clear problems that the SCOTUS will hear. If your writ is granted there's a better chance than not of securing the relief that you request.

I see nothign with it. There were probably a thousand appeals from the 9th circuit that weren't even heard...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

did you read to the end?

Quote

Though the Supreme Court is occasionally at odds with the 9th Court, the latest string of decisions is out of the ordinary. Judicial statistics kept by SCOTUSblog show that 9th Circuit decisions actually have a better-than-average showing before the Supreme Court. In the last session, 27 percent of its rulings were affirmed, while 60 percent were reversed. For all circuits, the reversal rate was 71 percent.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

did you read to the end?

AS IF



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Kennedy 0]

Actually even the supreme court thinks the ninth is a cluster fuck. In no other circuit is the so much intra-jurisdictional disagreement. There are more contradictory rulings in the ninth than there are between many other circuits. The ninth is simply so large and unwieldy that this is inevitable. Also, because the ninth covers some fairly nonconformist states, they handle enough unusual cases that review becomes necessary because there is no clear precedent or there is tangential conflict with other circuits' rulings.

But either way, you have to admit that some ofthe most hairbrained rulings have come out of the ninth.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Note that the SCOTUS reverses 71 percent of all cases it hears. This should be a noteworthy thing that explains some of what happens with the certiorari process.

The SCOTUS doesn't have to hear a case. Something like 1% of cases are heard by the SCOTUS. You need four justices to vote to hear a case put before the SCOTUS. You can bet that cases where the court agrees that everything looks cool won't want to mess with it. It's the cases where there are some clear problems that the SCOTUS will hear. If your writ is granted there's a better chance than not of securing the relief that you request.

I see nothign with it. There were probably a thousand appeals from the 9th circuit that weren't even heard...

I ain't gonna lie, the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has destroyed my home town so I am biased, but, you do have a very valid point.

A better way to judge them, I think, is how many cases do they hear from the 9th Circuit?

If they over turn about 70% of the cases across the board, what is the ratio of cases heard from the 9th Circuit compared to the rest of the country? Do they feel they need to look at the 9th more than any other appellate court?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[lawrocket 3]

SCOTUS appeals stats from federal courts from 1950-2006.

Affirmed   Reversed  Vacated   Other   Total

First Circuit 44 (39%) 52 (46%) 13 (12%) 5 (4%) 113 

Second Circuit 175 (44%) 193 (48%) 24 (6%) 12 (3%) 398 

Third Circuit 112 (43%) 122 (47%) 19 (7%) 11 (4%) 261 

Fourth Circuit 95 (43%) 106 (48%) 18 (8%) 7 (3%) 223 

Fifth Circuit 143 (34%) 232 (56%) 32 (8%) 17 (4%) 418 

Sixth Circuit 106 (36%) 166 (56%) 19 (6%) 10 (3%) 297 

Seventh Circuit 112 (37%) 159 (52%) 27 (9%) 9 (3%) 303 

Eighth Circuit 73 (33%) 121 (55%) 21 (10%) 5 (2%) 220 

Ninth Circuit 178 (29%) 347 (57%) 63 (10%) 22 (4%) 604 

Tenth Circuit 61 (38%) 90 (56%) 8 (5%) 4 (2%) 161 

Eleventh Circuit 51 (40%) 60 (48%) 10 (8%) 7 (6%) 126 

District of Columbia Circuit 92 (30%) 190 (62%) 28 (9%) 9 (3%) 304 

Federal Circuit 11 (26%) 21 (50%) 9 (21%) 1 (2%) 42 

All Federal Courts of Appeals 1253 (36%) 1859 (54%) 291 (8%) 119 (3%) 3470 

So the Ninth Circuit has, by far, the largest number of cases heard. It's also got the largest geographic area and largest population. http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx

So that makes sense simply by nature of volume. For years there has been discussion about splitting the Ninth Circuit because it is so large and unwieldy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

For years there has been discussion about splitting the Ninth Circuit because it is so large and unwieldy.

I agree. Two circuits that are medium-sized and unwieldy will probably generate more fees.

[lawrocket 3]

True. And there will likely be some judges that will not like that Hawaii is no longer in its Circuit.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,589]

One thing I noticed from this is that they are obviously not mathematicians . Only for the 8th circuit does the number of cases listed as "total" actually equal the sum of all of the cases listed.

Yes, I'm a geek.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Second Circuit Total- 398

Ninth Circuit Total- 604

Even if they are the largest, that the Supreme court shows this much of a difference between the ninth circuit and the next highest, the second circuit to me indicates a problem. Maybe breaking them up along with firing a few judges would be a good start.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wmw999 2,589]

The difference is not statistically significant, especially if you look at decisions that were reversed, vacated and "other."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The difference is not statistically significant, especially if you look at decisions that were reversed, vacated and "other."

Wendy P.

I would think that 5 in a row and unanimous would be statistically significant.

Maybe?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row. It doesn't mean that nature thinks that tails is an asshole.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row. It doesn't mean that nature thinks that tails is an asshole.

Good point
but this is not flipping a coin

There is some control on the Ninth's side of the coin

In other words

We are not talking a random chain of events are we.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

firing a few judges

Well, that's a yummy-sounding sound-byte, BUT:

Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments. Thus, removal ("firing") of a federal judge would require impeachment (the equivalent of an indictment) by a simple-majority vote of the House of Representatives, followed by a full trial and conviction by a TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY of the Senate.

The standard for the removal of a federal judge by such impeachment and conviction is proof of the commission of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

In practical terms, in the absence of a very lopsided majority of one party in both houses of Congress (especially the Senate), no federal judge is going to be removed by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate merely for rulings that are deemed contrary to existing law, unless those rulings are proven to be the direct result of something like actual corruption (like bribery, etc.), mental illness, medical disability, senility, etc. Mere ideology? - not a chance.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

It doesn't mean that nature thinks that tails is an asshole.

Well, then why does nature put assholes in the tail? Hm?
You can't answer that, can you?

[wmw999 2,589]

No, it's not flipping a coin. But to determine if it's meaningful, you compare behaviors with randomness like flipping a coin (learned that in BB school ).

If they're similar enough to random, then it's not meaningful.

Do you think there is an instance where five decisions in a row were affirmed? What would that mean?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

The difference is not statistically significant, especially if you look at decisions that were reversed, vacated and "other."

Wendy P.

I would think that 5 in a row and unanimous would be statistically significant.

Maybe?

Would the significance say something about the 9th? Or is the judge they kept overturning just a moron?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)