All the sample sizes are small, but the Federal Circut numbers aren’t wildly smaller then the others. They had more cases before the SCOTUS then the 10th, 3rd and 1st over the ten year period.
True that their subject matter is different then the other courts (but I don’t think its just restrained to IP, according to the link some 15 out of the 35 cases brought to the SCOTUS were not patent cases) , I was remembering a thread from a few years ago where the ninth circut was below average for a several years, so I thought their placement in the rankings of number of reversed cases was still below average.
Still, in the interest of fighting ignorance, its not true that the ninth is the most reversed federal appeals court.
A NYT article on the Ninth Circuit’s liberal reputation and frequent reversals, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25sfninth.html, includes this passage: “Those who criticize the court say the best evidence for their argument is the Supreme Court, which overturns the decisions of the Ninth more often than those of any other circuit. According to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in Washington, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 14 times of the 16 cases in the 2008-2009 term — an 88 percent reversal rate.” But others disagree, as you’ll see on p. 2 of that article.
Nitpick again, it’s the general jurisdiction federal appeals court that’s had the highest percentage of its cases reversed and vacated. According to Simplico’s list, the 10th has a higher percentage of cases reversed, but the higher number of 9th circuit cases vacated pushes it over the edge.
Well, it could be both, but you’re right. Simplicio’s numbers only show that it’s the general jurisdiction federal appeals court that has had the highest percentage of its reviewed cases reversed and vacated.
The ninth had the third highest percentage of cases reviewed by the SCOTUS (after DC and federal appeals), so at best taking into account the total rate of cases over-ruled, ninth might move from second to third highest. If you want, the numbers in the pdf shoud allow you to calculate the actual rankings in terms of percentage of total cases over-ruled, but in anycase, it won’t make that much of a difference in terms of the ninths relative placement.
I have to ask where you’re getting your figures from, because the figures in Simplicio’s link, and my figures outlines below, make clear that your statements about percentages are simply flat out wrong. Did you actually look into the reversed/vacated numbers for the other circuits, or did you just assume the 9th was highest by percentage in those two particular years.
SCOTUSBlog has been producing Supreme court stats for various aspects of the Court’s decisions (agreement between Justices; 5-4 decisions; opinion tallies; decisions by final vote; etc.) for the past few years, and their figures tell quite a different story.
For the two years you picked, they concur with your numbers for the Ninth Circuit. Reversed or vacated 15 of 18 in 2005 and 18 of 21 in 2006. And they agree that this represented the highest absolute number of cases.
But they do not concur that this represented the circuit with the highest percentage.
In 2005, the 1st (100%), 2nd (86%), 3rd (100%), 7th (100%), DC (100%), and Federal (100%) circuits all had higher percentages.
In 2006, the 3rd (100%) and 5th (100%) both had higher percentages.
The 2005 stats can be found on this page, and the 2006 stats on this page. On each page, click on the Circuit Scorecard link for the relevant PDF file.
Also, the 9th Circuit did not have the highest reversal percentage for 2004, 2007, 2008, or 2009 either.
They didn’t do a Circuit Scorecard in the years before 2004, so that’s as far back as i can go with those figures.
I’ve tallied up the figures for the years 2004-2009 inclusive, and got the following figures:
The percentages in my 6-year period are pretty close to those for Simplicio’s 10-year period. As you can see, the 9th is the most reversed/vacated by percentage over that six year period, but not my much.
Political science professor and researcher Susan B. Haire, who spends time investigating precisely this issue, notes in this New York Times piece:In the context of the total volume of cases, she said reversals are “marginally higher than the other circuits, but such a teeny-tiny difference from a substantive perspective even if it is statistically significant, people might say that’s to be expected when you have such a high volume” of cases.
[/quote]
Hmmm. I think that could work. It’s similar in principle to the practice of states which provide that the actual, physical drivers license or license plates remain property of the state after issuance, giving them broader latitude to recall them, demand their surrender or refuse permission to modify or adopt their content (as with vanity plates). Might be a problem extending the USG’s reach to military decorations handed out before enactment of the statute, though, as it would amount to a taking… or would it? It’d just be an assertion of ownership, 99.99999999999% of the time, after all, not a demand that the medals or ribbons be given back to Uncle Sam.
I’m sure they can probably get around it with some sort of silly law like this, but that wouldn’t change my objection to the principle of the matter.
There are readily-demonstrated and compelling reasons for the state to retain ownership of license plates and driver licenses, given the purpose that those identifying markers serve in authorizing people to drive, in authorizing cars to be on the road, and in helping police and other authorities make proper identification in the course of their duties. Encompassing medals under such a law would have no such compelling rationale.
Well, why stop there? By the same token, you could argue that there is no compelling rationale behind the awarding of military decorations at all. After all, if they have no intrinsic value…
I disagree, mhendo. While acknowledging the importance of free speech, I believe that any nation has a valid and lawful interest in seeing that its hard-won symbols of military heroism and service are not worn by those who did not earn them.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that what you say is true, the fact is that we’re talking in this thread about curtailing one of the most basic rights that we have - the right to freedom of expression. Any law that curtails such rights should be able to demonstrate a compelling reason to do so, and a compelling reason should never simply come down to “Some people are offended by what you’re saying,” which is what the Stolen Valor Act effectively said.
Why? What is the interest? Who is harmed by it? (And by harmed, i don’t mean simply annoyed or offended).
But issuing medals doesn’t restrict anyones rights, so there doesn’t really need to be a compelling reason. But preventing someone from claiming to have won a medal does restrict someones speech, so there needs to be a compelling reason.
In anycase, I don’t really see how the State retaining ownership solves the constitutional issue.
I guess if every schmoe on the street claims to have a purple heart, it might cheapen the award, but I don’t really see how it harms the military or real award winners any to have a few scattered fakes running around.
Plus, it seems a lot easier and much less fraught with constitutional issues just to publish an online database of military award winners. That way frauds would be more likely to get caught and subject to oppobrium, and real winners wouldn’t have to worry about people thinking they were faking somehow.