Lately, I've been talking to quite a few people about math and math curricula. I contend that one of the reasons we study math, when we don't intend to have a career in mathematics, is to be "numerate." When used as an adjective, numerate is used to describe someone who has the capacity for quantitative thought and expression. John Allen Paulos has written several books on mathematics in everyday life and likened "innumeracy" to illiteracy. My favorite Paulos book is A Mathematician Reads the Newspaper which looks at typical newspaper stories and why a knowledge of math either contradicts what everyone thinks or supports what many would consider a controversial conclusion.
This was a week where it helps to be "numerate." Earlier this week, President Obama nominated Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the resignation of David Souter. Almost immediately, the campaign against her began.
Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, claimed that Sotomayor "has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
What these two women were talking about is that The Supreme Court has reversed three of the five decisions in which Judge Sotomayor was in the majority for a 60% reversal rate. Many speculate that there will likely be a fourth as Ricci v. DeStefano is pending before The Supreme Court. Are these numbers enough to doom Judge Sotomayor's nomination? Are these folks lying? What should a numerate person ask?
First of all, neither person is lying; these numbers are a matter of public record. Perhaps, they are not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." If there is a failure, however, it is whether the media outlets should have published quotes like this without giving them meaning or context.
A numerate person should ask what the reversal rate is for the average Circuit Court of Appeals judge, and where Judge Sotomayor stands on that scale. What was the reversal rate of current Supreme Court justices? How does Judge Sotomayor compare to those numbers?
According to SCOTUSblog's SCOTUSwiki, the reversal rate for Circuit Court for the last five Supreme Court sessions (up until April 2009) is 73%. It would be nice to see a distribution, but it's clear that Judge Sotomayor is below the mean (and being "below average" in this case is a good thing). The most recent appointee, Justice Sam Alito was reversed on two of two occasions in which his majority decisions were reviewed. Sam Alito's reversal rate was 100%. Should that number have given the Senate "pause?" [Homework: Is that number significant?]
There was a good quote in The Wall Street Journal by Circuit Court Judge Guido Calabresi who said, "such reversals are typical. It's standard for what we do because most of the cases that go up [to the Supreme Court] are difficult." (source MediaMatters for quotes and numbers)
What might matter more is how many of Judge Sotomayor's majority decisions were allowed to stand by The Supreme Court. Again, two sets of numbers might apply. She was in the majority of the court for 380 decisions, of which she wrote 150 of them. So one could say that the reversal rate was 3 out of 380 (<1%) or 3 out of 150 (or 2%). Either way, those seem to be good numbers. No surprise, The White House used the former to state its case.
When speaking of statistics, many people quote Benjamin Disraeli's, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I prefer another attributed to Aaron Levenstein, "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
This was a week where it helps to be "numerate." Earlier this week, President Obama nominated Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the resignation of David Souter. Almost immediately, the campaign against her began.
Wendy Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network, claimed that Sotomayor "has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."
"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
What these two women were talking about is that The Supreme Court has reversed three of the five decisions in which Judge Sotomayor was in the majority for a 60% reversal rate. Many speculate that there will likely be a fourth as Ricci v. DeStefano is pending before The Supreme Court. Are these numbers enough to doom Judge Sotomayor's nomination? Are these folks lying? What should a numerate person ask?
First of all, neither person is lying; these numbers are a matter of public record. Perhaps, they are not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." If there is a failure, however, it is whether the media outlets should have published quotes like this without giving them meaning or context.
A numerate person should ask what the reversal rate is for the average Circuit Court of Appeals judge, and where Judge Sotomayor stands on that scale. What was the reversal rate of current Supreme Court justices? How does Judge Sotomayor compare to those numbers?
According to SCOTUSblog's SCOTUSwiki, the reversal rate for Circuit Court for the last five Supreme Court sessions (up until April 2009) is 73%. It would be nice to see a distribution, but it's clear that Judge Sotomayor is below the mean (and being "below average" in this case is a good thing). The most recent appointee, Justice Sam Alito was reversed on two of two occasions in which his majority decisions were reviewed. Sam Alito's reversal rate was 100%. Should that number have given the Senate "pause?" [Homework: Is that number significant?]
There was a good quote in The Wall Street Journal by Circuit Court Judge Guido Calabresi who said, "such reversals are typical. It's standard for what we do because most of the cases that go up [to the Supreme Court] are difficult." (source MediaMatters for quotes and numbers)
What might matter more is how many of Judge Sotomayor's majority decisions were allowed to stand by The Supreme Court. Again, two sets of numbers might apply. She was in the majority of the court for 380 decisions, of which she wrote 150 of them. So one could say that the reversal rate was 3 out of 380 (<1%) or 3 out of 150 (or 2%). Either way, those seem to be good numbers. No surprise, The White House used the former to state its case.
When speaking of statistics, many people quote Benjamin Disraeli's, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." I prefer another attributed to Aaron Levenstein, "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
