Nit: You can’t have a .400 batting average with 4 at bats. You need a minimum of 5 at bats (and 2 hits)
Comment by Alfred Anderson — Wednesday, July 5, 2024 @ 11:01 pm
Blog fight. Blog fiiiight!
(Sorry.)
For the batting average analogy to work - not necessarily on the level of simple math, but on the illustrative level at which it is intended - you’d need much higher proportion of cert grants. Where the Court grants cert in about 1 percent of the cases that are filed, we’re comparing really small numbers, so it’s not clear that they mean anything at all. The difference between your two batters is that one is good, the other may have gotten lucky. And when the Supreme Court takes a case, it’s likely to overturn it, so whether the rate for a circuit is 60% or 80% or 100% doesn’t mean much.
If you want to make a political point about the Ninth circuit - as critics like Bill O’Reilly do - you need more than the numbers. That’s why looking at the “high-profile” cases is interesting. Unless you think that cases like Texaco v. Dagher or Woodford v. Ngo really say something interesting about the political leanings of the Circuit. I doubt it.
Nit: You can’t have a .400 batting average with 4 at bats. You need a minimum of 5 at bats (and 2 hits)
Comment by Alfred Anderson — Wednesday, July 5, 2024 @ 11:01 pm
Blog fight. Blog fiiiight!
(Sorry.)
For the batting average analogy to work - not necessarily on the level of simple math, but on the illustrative level at which it is intended - you’d need much higher proportion of cert grants. Where the Court grants cert in about 1 percent of the cases that are filed, we’re comparing really small numbers, so it’s not clear that they mean anything at all. The difference between your two batters is that one is good, the other may have gotten lucky. And when the Supreme Court takes a case, it’s likely to overturn it, so whether the rate for a circuit is 60% or 80% or 100% doesn’t mean much.
If you want to make a political point about the Ninth circuit - as critics like Bill O’Reilly do - you need more than the numbers. That’s why looking at the “high-profile” cases is interesting. Unless you think that cases like Texaco v. Dagher or Woodford v. Ngo really say something interesting about the political leanings of the Circuit. I doubt it.
Comment by Brett Marston (guest blogger) — Thursday, July 6, 2024 @ 9:09 am