Posted on 02/02/2011 4:38:18 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Take a Hint? Supreme Court Rejects 5 Rulings in a Row From West Coast Bench
By Judson Berger
Published February 02, 2011 | FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court may be sending a message to one of the country's most liberal appeals courts, unanimously overturning five consecutive cases out of the 9th Circuit in less than a week.
As the nation's biggest circuit, representing most of the western United States, it should come as no surprise that the 9th Circuit has more cases heard before the Supreme Court than any other jurisdiction -- in turn resulting in more reversals. But the latest string of rulings is unusual even for the 9th, which often is at odds with conservatives on the Supreme Court. The fact that the rulings were unanimous can be seen as a signal from on high that the circuit needs to get in line.
"That's an indication this court is way out of the mainstream," said Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. "They're getting impatient with them. They just keep coming back with this stuff."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They are saving it for the Obamacare rejection.
Don’t trust the fools in black.
The next time we control Congress, the Ninth Circus’ jurisdiction should be reduced to the City of San Francisco. Let ‘em bugger each other into social justice Nirvana.
Waaaaaaay outside of the mainstream...
How often are his rulings reversed????
There. Fixed it.
Just how liberal whackjob ya gotta be before even Ginsberg tells you your view of the law is out in left field?
Second...
The most disturbing part of the article was this. Despite a reputation for having “the most rejected cases”, the 9th circus also hears the most cases; on a proportional basis...
“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.”
Who picks the Judges?
I think there must be extreme selection bias for cases that are to be rejected. 60% and 71%? Sounds like they take the cases they think there is a good chance they are going to reject.
As such I think “most reversed” is the more relevant statistic than “% rejected”. Perhaps most reversed normalized for the entire case load, not just those cases taken up by a higher court.
If the SCOTUS keeps having to hear your decisions, even if you DO have (only) a 61% rejection rate compared to 70%, it is because your views of the law raise eyebrows and they say “We will have to review this one”.
The most relevant measure would be how many cases the SCOTUS rejects normalized, not for how many are heard by a higher court and thus represented as a % rejected that they hear, but normalized for how many cases in total.
For example if the 9th took 100 cases, the SCOTUS reviewed 20 of them and rejected 61%, they still rejected some 12 to 13 decisions out of 100 cases.
If the 1st circuit took 100 cases, the SCOTUS reviewed only 10 of them and rejected 70%, well they only rejected 7 out of 100.
I think the 9th, by that criteria, would still count as “the most reversed”.
But at first I did find the 61% to 70% statistic disturbing.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. As Twain would say.
excuse my dyslexia.
60% and 71% throughout, self edit any 61%’s or 70%’s appropriately. Or just consider it a rounding error. ;)
My fear is that something will happen to one of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court before the 2012.
All nine smacked down the 9th circus. How insane do you have to be to have Ginsburg disagree with you?
These Leftist clowns should be impeached for their unamerican rulings. Why pay them fat salaries to come up with all these unconstitutional rulings?
GMTO.
See #8!
“My fear is that something will happen to one of the conservative judges on the Supreme Court before the 2012.”
I agree with you.....that’s probably why the Obama regime is not appealing Vinson’s ruling of Obamacare as unconstitutional. They’re just ignoring it.
There is a practice of allowing the Senators from the States where the Courts rule to suggest the nominees to the bench to the President. That needs to change when we get rid of Obama. The President is supposed to come up with the nominees..and then lets fight it out in the Senate. No more GOP Presidents taking nominations from the likes of Boxer and Feinswine.
There's the rub.
My question is why isn’t the MSM reporting this news?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.