Brutal.
Read their opinion…
You guys understand there’s 1 more venue should they decide to take it right?
The appeals courts have a habit of getting stuff wrong.
Of course, but it is estimated they won’t hear the case (again).
And this is just a flat out outrageous lie.
And before you try to say “those were trial court decisions” appeals affirmed them afterward.
Very rarely does a trial case go direct to SCOTUS
So historically lower courts are wrong 7/10 times. Last year it was 10 points higher. But I’m a liar. Lol.
Lower courts don’t concern themselves with constitutional questions. They follow statutes.
Hey @thre305ive - you gonna come in here and burn @djrion?
Look look! He got it wrong!
Oh no- that’s right- you’re all obsessed with me getting it wrong. Not your side lol.
Fucking clowns
This is a good point and makes sense.
At least give the man time to respond, no?
Just to spell it out one more time - I won’t jump on people for making mistakes. It’s their refusal to admit such that is a problem.
J
F
C
Yes, you are a liar.
Federal courts of appeals routinely handle more than 50,000 cases each year. Ten percent or fewer of those decisions are appealed to the Supreme Court, which in turn hears oral arguments in fewer than 100 cases annually. Thus, the vast majority of courts of appeals decisions are final, and they are binding on lower courts within the same circuit.
There is a reason you’ve earned the GSCl 
wn nic.
Greater than 90% success rate is a pretty damn good grade
You can’t logically really believe that by running all the way to the SCOTUS you have a better success rate can you? How fucking stupid could someone be?
You’re joking right?
Just because a case isn’t appealed doesn’t mean the decision was correct.
There could be good reasons, even if a case is decided wrongly, not to appeal.
Chief among those reasons are financial considerations.
I used to work with a specialized law firm that only handled appeals and amicus briefs, their services were wildly expensive because the appellate process is extremely long and requires highly specialized work. I remember one of their partners describing to me how all of their lawyers were summa and magna cum laude from the best legal schools in the world. And that they turned down a lot of cases because they only want to work on particular constitutional issues.
There’s also the point that when you appeal- you don’t appeal the actual decision. An appeal for judicial review inspects the judicial process.
For instance- you are in a criminal case- the court finds you guilty but allowed a particular piece of evidence into discovery. The appeal isn’t as much about the ruling than it is about the court violating it’s jurisdiction or making a decision that was outside the bounds of its scope or perhaps they violated a particular process that was codified in the rules.
Lastly- a defendent may just want to get on with life. Litigation is amazingly stressful and requires intense resources outside of just money itself. Unless there is a very good financial or constitutional incentive/reason to appeal, most litigants do not.
So you can’t infer that just because a decision was not challenged that is was the correct decision.
You can only look at the bucket of challenged cases and infer/determine that question.
But nice try. It was a valiant effort that you took your time on once you realized what a stupid fucking comment you made.
Maybe next time just stop calling people liars when you don’t really know what you’re talking about.
As you say- it’s ok to admit mistakes. Shit happens.
PS - you’d also have to throw away every single case where the government was the plaintiff and lost at trial court level because the the State doesn’t reserve the right to appeal.
So if 50% or more of those cases you used are the government filing the complaint or criminal in nature they must be taken out of your number because they are exempt from the appeals process.
Keep trying though. You don’t realize how passionate and well versed I am on this subject.
Keep on. I can go forever on this.
Bingo! The government was using its police power to influence a private corporation to suppress speech it found detrimental to its own interests.
Hang them all
Um ditto
You are fucking moron
AND WRONG as usual.
Fucking clownshow
90 fucking percent +
Dude, legit got demolished and ran
This clown thinks I wish death upon people
See, GSC, this is why we wait for a response.
You posted an assertion:
It sounds solid, but there’s built-in confirmation bias. You’re only considering the cases that are shaky enough to go to the Supreme Court in the first place. So is it odd that these have a higher change of being overturned? No. It is perhaps expected.
This is one of those cases where you should admit you came to a factually incorrect conclusion based on limited data.
Instead you want to double down with this logic?
So what? And just because the Supreme Court overturned a cases doesn’t mean it was incorrect, right? We can’t cherry pick the court decisions we like and ignore the decisions we don’t.
I would even argue I want to see the numbers longitudinally as well. Not “duuuuurrrrrrr, I’m an idiot, look at the numbers this year and see case closed I’m right duuuuurrrrrrr”
No this logic doesn’t follow.
This logic does follow because as I said the 2 biggest factors for an appeal are cost and time.
If someone doesn’t have the money or the time to challenge, they don’t appeal, even if the decision is wrong.
But as I thought, your bias once again comes through lol.
Even IF our board clown COULD quantify this (he can’t)
He’s still dead ass wrong
You might be asking yourself why?
First GSCl wn is a liar.
2nd he is ridiculously stupid
Third,
The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.
While time and money are factors, the cases MUST have merit and be worthy of consideration as well. Plus you still have the fact that the appellate courts are right 90%+ of the time.
Just admit you are wrong and move along. FFS