In reflecting on this answer, it is disappointing to me that I cannot give you an answer of “never”.
There are a few cases where the analysis of the judge strongly indicates a deliberate intent to commit or gross negligence that resulted in reversible error.
In CV12-02385 the district court entered a one-page order on December 5th, 2012, that looked to be articulated by a 5th grader. I’m not trying to be insulting, but in the factual sense, one who reads the order can hardly come to any other conclusion. It also claimed that the case would be dismissed for failure to provide evidence when it is a fundamentally and universally known that at this early juncture in the proceedings, the evidence is not provided to the Court. The Supreme Court reversed the error on May 13, 2013.
In CV13–01019 the district court contorted itself into a pretzel of convoluted analysis that to any reader makes no sense. It denied a motion that on its face should have been granted. It could only be that this order was written with a conclusion decided, to deny the motion, the analysis to support that conclusion to come at any cost. Again, this is not said with the intent to insult the district judge. One need only read the order and see just how bizarre it gets. The order was entered March 3, 2014, and the Supreme Court reversed the error on April 23, 2015.
There are two other cases the Supreme Court ruled in my favor on, but I believe those judges made errors in good faith. That is, they sincerely thought they were right, but made a mistake.
I do believe that the above-mentioned cases were not the result of any gender or ideological bias as you mention in your question. I think in fact that they simply did not appreciate pro se (i.e. self-represented) litigants.
I’ve had some good experiences as well, and many neutral ones. I hope that eventually, my organization (www.ournevadajudges.com) continues to grow and develop so that the electorate is better able to identify the incompetent judges and remove them from the bench.