For those that know Tim Baughman, who spoke at the last Matthew Paul Advanced Appellate Course in Waco and was a regular speaker at the NAC, he has already pointed out a flaw in one Ginsburg's footnotes.


http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/

It's not a methodological error, it's statistics being used in exactly the way the judge intends to use them. The same way that they used states that don't allow the death penalty at all to support their claim that states weren't using the death penalty on juveniles.

As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.


(Incidentally, a direct link to the point in question is here.)