Folks have been similarly complaining about the Ninth for some time, which has its rulings reversed about as often as the Fifth’s [1].
[1] https://ballotpedia.org/SCOTUS_case_reversal_rates_(2007_-_P...
"But both sides do it," they say?
No worries. There's no particular harm in destroying both.
That’s only the recent term.
Scroll down to the first vertical bar graph. Sixth is reversed over 80% of the time, Ninth right behind it. Fifth, Eighth and the State Courts comprise the second cohort in the 70-ish percent range. Note that these are conditional probabilities; we’re observing cases SCOTUS took on.
I'm also not sure why reversals are the metric we are going off of here to decide if a court is partisan/legislating from the bench. You're asserting that as if it's self-evident.
That said, I agree this isnt a contest. "whataboutism" is only useful insofar as it demonstrates that this is not a phenomenon exclusive to either the 5th OR 9th circuits. Having sent that topic to bed, the question is what (if anything) reversals mean.
To me, they simply mean that the courts are in disagreement with the SCOTUS. Circuits have different opinions, just as the supreme justices have different opinions.
I dont think it is unreasonable the presume that the SCOTUS legal philosophy falls between that of the most liberal circuit and most conservative circuits. This is not in of itself unexpected or a condemnation. If every court was in perfect harmony, we wouldn't even need the appeals process.
One can ask if the legal opinions held by the 5th or 9th courts pass the red face credibility test, but I agree reversals alone wont tell you that. you would have to get into the weeds.
That a conservative court overturns the 5th as often as it overturns the 9th is in itself telling.
I'm also not sure why reversals are the metric we are going off of here to decide if a court is partisan/legislating from the bench. You're asserting that as if it's self-evident.