Trump says he is "absolutely considering" proposals to eliminate 9th Circuit Court

Quipling said:
Your argument is as comprehensible as ever.

1.) It's not a random sample. People don't bother to appeal cases where the court did a good job. Generally speaking, the more likely it is to get overturned, the more likely it is to be appealed, and vice-versa. Scotus is sampling from the most controversial cases.
2.) They're not reviewing 1% of the work. They're reviewing about 15% of the work. The post you quoted explicitly stated that 1500 out of the 10000 cases are presented for review to Scotus. Of those 1500 cases, Scotus reads the application for certiori and the 9th circuit's decision. Then they decide that 10 had possible grounds for overturned, and selected those for further briefing and argument, of which 8 are actually overturned.

The 80% figure is because shitty journalists only know about the last step, and shitty posters lap it up, but they've reviewed 1500 cases to get to those 8.

If my boss reviewed 15% of my work, and ultimately only found 0.5% wrong, he'd probably give me a bonus larger than your annual take-home.
Click to expand...

Each year the federal courts of appeals collectively terminate an average of 60,467 cases. However, the Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year, which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the federal courts of appeals.

Bullshit, they didn't just decide that those were the only ones, they have a fuckin schedule to keep and have to review for all circuits. There could have been many more cases for review but they only have time for so,many cases a year. They can't sit there and pick all 9th circuit cases. Their time is spread between all the circuits.

That doesn't mean that there weren't other cases for consideration. Just that a case from another circuit may have trumped the review of a case from the 9th.

If I have a list of 2000 random cases and I look through and think 900 of them have good cause for review, I can't review all 900, I have a schedule. I have to prioritize. That doesn't mean that the other 700i can't look at are good judgements.
 
CableandThanos said:
Says the dumbass that thinks getting 80% of your work wrong (in any PERCENTAGE) IS OK.


We know you are fuckin retarded but you don't need to type shit out and keep showing everyone.



It's better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a dumbass rather than open it and prove to everyone you are a dumbass. Well that ship has sailed but no need to keep reminding everyone.
Click to expand...
If you do 99 things out of 100 right, and the thing you did wrong is brought to me for review, should I conclude that because 100% of your reviewed work was found wrong, that you were a terrible employee?

You can't possibly be this bad at thinking. You must have realized this a few posts ago, and are now just trying to save face. This is the point where somebody from your tribe needs to let you know that you are wrong, so you will listen. Problem is, your tribe is pretty dumb. It may take a while.
 
CableandThanos said:
lol 80% of the cases reviewed get overturned. even if your boss reviewed 1% of your work and found 80% of it wrong, what would he think of your overall work?
Click to expand...
Except that isn't what's happening. In this scenario, your boss is looking at 15% of your work, 1500/10000, and finding that less than 1% of that needs to be overturned.

If my boss was so bad with numbers that he didn't understand that, I'd be looking for someone more competent to work under.
 
CableandThanos said:
Bullshit, they didn't just decide that those were the only ones, they have a fuckin schedule to keep and have to review for all circuits. There could have been many more cases for review but they only have time for so,many cases a year. They can't sit there and pick all 9th circuit cases. Their time is spread between all the circuits.

That doesn't mean that there weren't other cases for consideration. Just that a case from another circuit may have trumped the review of a case from the 9th.

If I have a list of 2000 random cases and I look through and think 900 of them have good cause for review, I can't review all 900, I have a schedule. I have to prioritize. That doesn't mean that the other 700i can't look at are good judgements.
Click to expand...
I think everybody understands that we're arguing about spin. But if you want to point out that SCOTUS doesn't have the time to look at every case, I think you'd also need to admit that they are going to pointedly ignore looking more closely at cases where they think the 9th has done a good job. Regardless, it's as much a stretch to say that the 9th gets 79% of its work wrong as it is to say they get 99.9% of their work right.
 
Last edited:
The only judges we need...

Judge_Dredd.jpg
 
So the librul, ghey loving scotus overturned a few so called ninth circuit judges' decisions. Obviously they cancel each other out until Trump can fill the bench with uppercuts and replace them with winners.

This boils down to Trump trying to run America like one of his businesses and fire anyone who challenges him.
 
No, he's not trying to silence people that oppose him, but ones that don't follow the law!
 
CableandThanos said:
Each year the federal courts of appeals collectively terminate an average of 60,467 cases. However, the Supreme Court only reviews an average of 64 cases per year, which is about 0.106% of all decisions by the federal courts of appeals.

Bullshit, they didn't just decide that those were the only ones, they have a fuckin schedule to keep and have to review for all circuits. There could have been many more cases for review but they only have time for so,many cases a year. They can't sit there and pick all 9th circuit cases. Their time is spread between all the circuits.

That doesn't mean that there weren't other cases for consideration. Just that a case from another circuit may have trumped the review of a case from the 9th.

If I have a list of 2000 random cases and I look through and think 900 of them have good cause for review, I can't review all 900, I have a schedule. I have to prioritize. That doesn't mean that the other 700i can't look at are good judgements.
Click to expand...
You're out of your depth and making things up.

SCOTUS doesn't just leave cases on the table because "they have a schedule" and "need to get to other circuits." Our courts have never worked that way. You literally just invented that because it sounded plausible to you.

They don't conduct a full review for all 1500 cases because the vast majority of the time, the lower court gets it right, and a full hearing isn't necessary. If they have lots of difficult cases, they will schedule more full hearings.

If this isn't clear, consider that they've been hearing 75-92 per term under Roberts, and usually heard 100+ under his predecessors. Between 1950 and 1990 they had 2 years with less than 100 cases, and 22 with more than 150. The modern court's busiest term was in 2009, with 92 cases. (Robert's immediate predessecor was somewhere between these two ranges).

If you found that too technical, Scotus's least busy year from 1955 to 1990 still saw more cases (99) than this court at it's busiest.
They have time. They're just being more careful to not take up cases that don't actually need review.
 
Last edited:
Helden said:
The usual suspects are blatantly cheering for hints of fascism

Heir lecter
Heir rip
Click to expand...

Gotta remember, every authoritarian and even fascist regime has some public support. Yes, even Saddam, Mao, Stalin, even Hitler.

There are a lot of people out there with a soft spot for strongmen that'll take out the bad guys, violently if needed, and provide safety, authority, etc.

There are a number of well-established measures of authoritarianism; the best known (and hence the most widely used) is the California F Scale which attempts to measure prejudice, rigid thinking. There are nine factors and statements reflecting each factor:

1. Conventionalism: rigid adherence to conventional middle-class values. (‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.’)
2. Authoritarian submission: uncritical acceptance of authority. (‘Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down.’)
3. Authoritarian aggression: a tendency to condemn anyone who violates conventional norms. (‘A person who has bad manners, habits and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people.’)
4. Anti-intraception: rejection of weakness or sentimentality. (‘The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and professor.’)
5. Superstition and stereotypy: belief in mystical determinants of action and rigid, categorical thinking. (‘Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things.’)
6. Power and toughness: preoccupation with dominance over others. (‘No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough willpower.’)
7. Destructiveness and cynicism: a generalized feeling of hostility and anger. (‘Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.’)
8. Projectivity: a tendency to project inner emotions and impulses outward. (‘Most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places.’)
9. Sex: exaggerated concern for proper sexual conduct. (‘Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.’)
Click to expand...


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sideways-view/201502/the-mind-the-authoritarian


Almost a perfect description of WR right-wingers.
 
Just gotta eliminate Congress and state gov'ts and then we're good. Freedom!
 
Seems to be a good first step to the glory that's going on in Turkey right now.
 
Campaign on locking up your political rivals, attack the free media and turn your supporters against them, now threaten to dissolve the judicial district that blocks your legally questionable orders.

Sounds like freedom to me.
 
Edison Carasio said:
Campaign on locking up your political rivals, attack the free media and turn your supporters against them, now threaten to dissolve the judicial district that blocks your legally questionable orders.

Sounds like freedom to me.
Click to expand...
I've heard of another foreign leader that does the same thing. I think his name started with a V and his last name was poutine or something like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

koquerelle
Elections Biden considering executive action to restrict asylum at the border
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
2K
fica
F

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,054
Messages
55,464,040
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top