That argument would still not make much sense without an idea of what it means to be "better." Is a low rate of reversal "better"? (in principle, all it can mean that SCOTUS took a case to demonstrate that yes, the precedent still stands, despite the change of public opinion; or that the judge is in line with the current SCOTUS, which is something the president may actually want to change) or is a high rate of reversal "better"? Is a low rate of having your cases end up in SCOTUS at all "better"? Or is a low rate "better"?
And can we talk about rates at all, when it's on the level of 5 cases out of 150? At that point I would think it would be more about the individual cases themselves than about the rates.
Besides, one of her cases is currently being decided by the supreme court and another one has just been picked up for certiriorari. That can change her rate wildly. Says much about the value of measuring the rates, doesn't it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-05-29 11:12 am (UTC)And can we talk about rates at all, when it's on the level of 5 cases out of 150? At that point I would think it would be more about the individual cases themselves than about the rates.
Besides, one of her cases is currently being decided by the supreme court and another one has just been picked up for certiriorari. That can change her rate wildly. Says much about the value of measuring the rates, doesn't it?