Also, from what I can tell from my reading and research, the percentage of reversals is the same as any other circuit - 75%, and that's 75% of something like 1% of the cases decided.

Isn't this, as many on the right would say about the NYT, a blantant attempt at manipulation of the situation?

I mean, really...

Certainly a valid point on the definitions, although the 9th circuit is consistently more leftist than others. Not surprising, given the judges are drawn from one of the more leftist parts of the country.

The numbers I've seen--and it's been a couple of months now--indicate that the 9th is reversed more often as a percentage but, more importantly, their cases are reviewed much, much more frequently.

The silly thing about this, as I see it, is that the 9th circuit presides over CA, which is the 5th largest economy on the planet, with 30 million people. Of course there's going to be a heck of a lot of law done out here. We're our own country for all practical intents and purposes (well, we don't have our own military).

I don't know. This sounds an awful lot like propaganda to me. The distortion of the statistics is pretty blatant, and the implications are pretty blatant, too.

Seems like the right here is pretty much doing the same thing they accuse the liberal press of doing.

Circuits have never worked like that, and they probably never will. As you know from the judicial politics literature, coding for whether or not the judge is "from the south" is an important move in describing judicial ideology.

The 9th circuit is more liberal, the 4th circuit is more conservative. I don't see the big deal here, really, except that I think that the 4th Circuit is too deferential to prosecutors, too willing to deny criminal appeals, too willing to take executive determinations of things like "enemy combatant" status at face value, and so on. But there is going to be some variation -- especially since the Supreme Court will never be able to monitor all courts effectively.

I think that's right. Indeed, regional variation in the circuits is, to an extent, another extension of federalism. Ideally, I'd like a uniform reading of the Constitution based on a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the Framers. But, since that's not going to be the norm, we're going to have regional variation since the circuit judgeships are filled from within the circuit and because Senators from the circuit have de facto veto power, especially if the nominee is from their home state.

The problem comes in when they use extralegal means to legislate as they did here.

They often (as in this case) make ruling that have no basis in fact, law or reality. Being liberal is fine. Being delusional and extraconstitutional ain't.

For example, assume the 4th decided that Roy Moore's fancy Ten Commandments display was just dandy, but the 9th decided a similar display was not. Clearly they both can't be right about the meaning of the Constitution. (That is, after all, why SCOTUS tries to reconcile these sorts of things, with limited success due to strategic certiorari voting and a general desire to reduce its workload.)

I mean, the idea of regional variation in the circuits is nice from a fuzzy-wuzzy "regions' rights" perspective, but it sort of flys in the face of equal protection that the justice one gets in the 9th is different from that one gets in the 4th. Maybe not as offensive to the idea of EP as "community standards" and similar weaseling by the Court, but offensive nonetheless.

---