please shut up
Printable View
please shut up
What is the average reversal rate for CoA decisions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Give us a baseline, counselor.
Of hers? Of the cases in which she's actually written the opinion that's been subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That number would be 3. Three reversals in 6 cases that the Supreme Court has taken. She's 50% in being affirmed by the Supreme Court on opinions that she's written and that they've actually considered on something other than a summary basis.
For what it's worth, the Court's reversal rate for the last 3 terms hovers around 75% and since the end of World War II, that reversal rate is generally in the high 60's or low 70's. Statistically, she's decidedly on the good side of that number.
I'm not sure how it's "absolutely ridiculous" to appoint a judge whose reversal rate is strikingly below the Supreme Court average over the handful of almost 400 written opinions that the Court even thinks should be reviewed.
Do you KNOW how many cases the Supreme Court has reversed? Could you please provide proof?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
And if you REALLY wanted to do your homework, pick one or two other SCOTUS Judges before they were nominated, and see what the number of their reversed cases were.
Ha! Nevermind. FWDT did your homework for you. Let's see how big this football field gets with the next goalpost movement.
But.but,but she's a racist Jeff!Quote:
WASHINGTON – The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday he doesn't foresee a filibuster against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, even though he thinks her legal philosophy should be closely examined.
"The nominee has serious problems," Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a nationally broadcast interview. "But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court."
"I don't sense a filibuster in the works," the Alabama Republican said, after President Barack Obama's call for the Senate to install his history-making choice of the 54-year-old Sotomayor to succeed Justice David Souter on the high court. She would be the first Hispanic justice to serve there.
sincerely,
yonivore
The reversal rate is so high because they pick which cases to take. They don't take all that are requested.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
3 in 6 is statistically insignificant. Not enough data points. If she understands the law rather than applying personal opinion, her reversal shouldn't be that high. This will soon be 4 reversals in 7 anyway.
Besides, do you want a supreme court that has members who only get it right half the time? They are suppose to be the cream of the crop. Not a choice for political reasons.
So what is the reversal rate of all the other SCOTUS justices?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Surely you have already made the comparisons and aren't just making shit up, so give us the data.
She'll be confirmed.
Conservatives or yonivorians want things their way and no other way.
And of course the Supreme Court generally grants review to reverse -- hence the high reversal rate. What's statistically significant, though, is that of the 400 or so cases that she's written, only 6 have even warranted review (though, by way of disclosure, I'm not sure yet in how many of those certiorari was actually sought) and only 3 of those have resulted in reversals. You're right that 3 in 6 is statistically insignificant; but 3 in almost 400 is rather statistically significant, one would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Moreover, it's not as if she's been reversed unanimously in the cases that the Court has reviewed (although there appears to have been one case that met that fate). If her opinions are being reversed 5-4 or 6-3 it sure sounds as though there are reasonable grounds for disagreement on difficult questions of law (the Supreme Court doesn't review facts and rarely takes easy legal questions) where there is substantial disagreement about what the law is and support for her conclusion.
I'm still looking for the reversal rates of Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts when each of them sat on the courts of appeals, if only to have a point of comparison.
First off, your response is not quite in line with my intent. Now I assume your numbers are right about the high 60's to 70's percents. I'm saying that is a meaningless comparison as well, because not all cases are reviewed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
As for the cases reviewed, at least one of them was unanimous. That should be significant when even all the lefties reverse a ruling.
Would you agree that 50% is a poor track record to be appointed to the highest court? Any of those 60% to 70% people been nominated even?
Why does President Obama want to make himself appear even more of a joke than people already see him as?
Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why do you want to make yourself appear even more of a joke than people already see you as?
If you have relative stats, let's see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I already asked you for them, stat boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You don't understand how this works, do you?
Yes, I do understand how a slimball like you works.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Guess what. I haven't looked them up. I am more concerned about the latest case about to be unanimously reversed (yes my opinion) because it is reverse racism, and the fact she has had at least one other opinion unanomously reversed. Not a 5-4 decision.
You see, she has to be legally incompetent, to have such a reversal. Because of that, I really don't care about the other statistical facts.
:lol
Changing the subject is probably a good idea at this point.
Why did you argue your unsupported position so strongly just to run away from it like a pussy?
Nah. There are many reasons a decision can be unanimously reversed. If one of those reversals called her legally incompetent in writing, then you might have something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
There you go, being an ass again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I told you. I don't care about the stats. I care about how complete her decision was overturned.
I responded to FWD's stats. I don't care about comparisons. I think 50% is simply too high. Especially when any of the reversals are unanimous.Quote:
Why do you keep spouting off stats for one person with no comparison at all to make them relevant?
Show me where I said the relative stats are important? I'm not comparing her to anyone. Just the fact she's not qualified in my opinion. I must state that, because there are few legal qualifications.
Believe as you wish. I do not want a court appointee who's peers have unanimously overturned one of her opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So what are your qualifications and how many justices have met them?
Or did you just start making up the qualifications yesterday?
So you did this research on all the appointees since you've been voting right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You've checked all their stats, right?
In my opinion, we clearly have others that shouldn't be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
That is not my point, nor am I about to entertain you. Give it up.
I am simply saying she should not be chosen because of her poor track record and prejudice. Again, others probably shouldn't be there either under my criteria. Unlikely since what gets me the most is the unanimous nature.
Just because there might be one rotton apple, should we add more?
That's nonsense - all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
First of all, I'm almost 100% sure you're wrong about the pending case; listening last night to a lawyer who regularly advocates before the Supreme Court and knows far more about its justices than either you or I do, I'm convinced that the most likely result is a 5-4 or 6-3 split, either to affirm or reverse on a question that Mr. Dellinger forthrightly called novel and difficult. I'd be curious what -- other than your own hopes -- should make me believe your hunch over Walter Dellinger's.
Second, a judge who is reversed 9-0 isn't incompetent, particularly when the case at hand involves a novel and difficult question of law for which there is no precedent. Intermediate court judges frequently make guesses -- educated guesses based on existing case law (frequently case law that is itself splintered and in conflict) about how a particular issue should be resolved. It's not uncommon for the guesses in such cases to be deemed incorrect or for the Supreme Court to consider other policies in construing the laws at issue in those cases. Was the judge who maintained separate but equal in Brown v. Board of Education before that case was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court incompetent? I doubt it; he did his best to follow the law as it existed at that time but the Supreme Court disagreed with him, unanimously.
Finally, while we're hung up on 3/6 as a reversal rate, in real terms, that rate is much more like 3/390 -- it's a verifiable fact that she's been reversed in substantially less than 1% of the cases in which she's authored a controlling opinion.
So you just started making up your qualifications yesterday.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Understood.