Ninth Circuit Court Judge Sidney Thomas is trying to quash the perception that his circuit is the most reversed in the country. Thomas, who is moderating a panel reviewing the Supreme Court term, came prepared with years of statistics that showed other circuits, with a fewer number of cases, having very high — even 100 percent — reversal rates at the Supreme Court.

"We're not the most reversed. Period," he said. He said reversal rates are unimportant, except that they are used in the argument for breaking up the court.

U.C. Davis law professor Vik Amar said it's not just the high number of reversals that are meaningful, but the number of cases the high court hears from the West. "The Ninth Circuit is over represented on the Supreme Court docket year after year," he said. The other issue, which Amar said is a "better metric" of Ninth Circuit performance, is how many of those reversals are by unanimous or overwhelming vote of the Supreme Court. And it turns out that the Ninth Circuit is overturned often by 9-0 or 8-1 votes, he said. That "helps shape the perception" that the Ninth is the most reversed court in the country.

Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee said that a high reversal rate has no effect on his work "in terms of disciplining my opinions." But he does believe "we have a bit of a target on our back." He said the Ninth Circuit was always a favorite topic for jokes and satirical skits at annual reunions former Chief Justice William Rehnquist held for his clerks.

Amar suggested that part of the problem may be with the impression of the Ninth Cricuit among students in Ivy League law schools. Those are the people who become Supreme Court clerks and, Amar said, their preconceived notions about the Ninth can bubble up to influence which cases the Supreme Court decides to hear.

Maybe the Ninth Circuit needs a PR offensive aimed at Harvard and Yale law students. Spring break in Hawaii?

For years, critics of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have said that the court has grown too large and unwieldy. Some have argued that as the largest circuit, it should be broken up. (There are 28 active judges on the court and more than 20 senior judges.) In the late 1990s there were moves in Congress to break up the court. That seems unlikely with Democrats in charge in D.C. But critics remain. As recently as July, Vanderbilt law professor Brian Fitzpatrick said the Ninth Circuit's high record of being overturned by the Supreme Court is evidence that the court is working poorly.

The 9th Circuit also has a long-running streak as the most overturned, which went unbroken this year. The Supreme Court reviewed 22 cases from the 9th Circuit last term, and it reversed or vacated 19 times.

These numbers suggest that the 9th Circuit is not doing a very good job. ... Proponents of splitting the 9th Circuit largely have been unable, however, to connect the colossal court's size to its high rate of reversal. But there is a connection. Indeed, it can be shown mathematically that, as a court grows larger, it is increasingly likely to issue extreme decisions.

Veteran judges on the circuit are on a panel now at the Ninth Circuit Media Conference talking about criticism of the size of the court.

Former Chief Judge Procter Hug, Jr., said the problem is not the size of the court but making sure that judges have the "judge time" to work on cases.

"A large circuit can work and work very well. We have a difficulty explaining that to some of the eastern circuits because they think the only way it can operate is if it's small. Matter of fact, we have some difficulty explaining that to the Supreme Court. But it does work. So many things that are innovations in other circuits have really been copied form the Ninth Circuit."

Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski said there are many advantages to a large court over what claim are smaller and more collegial courts.

"You know, it's collegial if you like and get along with all the people equally well. Imagine yourself locked into a small room with eight other people, some of whom you hate. ... I can say with no sense of irony that I love all of my colleagues. But I also think I'd possibly love them a bit less if I saw more of them."

Chief Judge Mary Schroeder said that is backed up by psychologists who say a large group works better "because you don't have to spend all the time with each other."

"It's really true that we get along extremely well. People don't believe it."

During this morning's panel at the Ninth Circuit Media Conference, "Bloggers: The New Journalism," UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh said newspapers are going the way of "candles and horses."