New StatPack, Including First Justice Agreement Stats
A new StatPack is available for download here. It has three new inclusions from the last edition: Justice Agreement, Decisions by Final Vote, and a new chart we’re calling “Frequency in the Majority” (thanks go to Ben for this chart).
The first two additions are charts we’ve offered before (see here for last year’s End-of-Term stats) but were hesitant to include in previous StatPacks this Term because it’s so early. With the Term roughly 25% complete in terms of the issuing of decisions (there have been 17 substantive opinions so far out of an estimate of 70), we figured it’s worth releasing them, with the disclaimer that these charts ought to be taken with a large grain of salt: so much is still left outstanding this Term, and they could (and likely will) change drastically by the time the Court recesses for the summer.
The true “new” addition to the StatPack is a tally of how often each Justice votes with the majority - both overall and in divided cases only (you can download this chart individually here). While recognizing that no one method exists to measure “success” on the Court, we hope these figures will provide a general, if imperfect, measurement of how often each Justice is presumably pleased with the outcome of the Court’s decisions. With only 17 total merits opinions thus far released (eight of which were decided 9-0), the current results are, as we previously mentioned, highly preliminary.
Nonetheless, there seem to be two observations worth pointing out. First, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who dissented in Ali and Danforth, has already equaled the two dissenting votes he cast during the entirety of the previous term (see here). Kennedy’s dissent in Ali also broke the streak of 5-4 cases in which he voted with the majority — readers may recall that he was a perfect 24-for-24 last Term. Second, Justice Antonin Scalia is the only member of the Court to vote with the majority in every merits decision issued so far this Term. Chief Justice John G. Roberts had been tied with Scalia before dissenting in Danforth, but now Scalia is the only Justice who has yet to disagree with the outcome of a case.
looking at the opinoins from the dec sitting, does the fact that Stevens already issued one with Boumedienne still outstanding increase the chances that the consrvatives won that one? Stevens wrote Hamdan and Rasul and it would seem to figure that he’d write Boumedienne as well if his side had carried the day. Since he’s covered for an opinion and Kennedy isn’t, and since Kennedy is the key vote, I think it’s pretty clear taht he’ll be issuing the opinion. If the liberals had won the case I think it’s more likely that Stevens would have written it than Kennedu thus I’m guessing that Roberts assigned the case to Kennedy and it will be at least a narrow win for the conservatives.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Thoughts?
Comment by rufus peckham — February 23, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
I think that is exactly what has happened. Roberts, being in the majority, has assigned the opinion to Kennedy, thus producing somewhat of a victory for the conservative side.
Although if Kennedy is writing the opinion then I somehow suspect that Scalia and Thomas will sign on to very little of the opinion, seeing as how they would write a far more “conservative” opinion.
Comment by Danny Evans — February 23, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
and fwiw, why is the sc so secretive? Congress is on C-Span. When a bill is introduced the public can follow it through to passage or failure, all the hearings, the debates, etc… Why does the Court have to do everything in secret? Would it really be that bad to have the conference reported on or covered? there’s nothing in the Constitution that says the Court gets to work in secret.
also, I noticed that in Stevens’ recent 7-2 opinion in Danforth, Roberts and Kennedy were the 2 dissenters. Kennedy signed on to Roberts dissent. Perhaps a hint that the 2 of them are working together in other cases as well.
Based on the oral arguments this term could actually turn out ok for the conservatives. They seem to have done well in Baze, this Boumedienne hint looks positive, and Heller who knows but I feel confident there’s a 5th vote out there.
If only Stevens or Ginsburg had stepped down, the conservatives would control the court. If McCain wins in November, the Court could be firmly consevrative for the next 25 years.
Comment by rufus peckham — February 24, 2008 @ 4:00 am
Rufus,
“Kennedy signed on to Roberts dissent. Perhaps a hint that the 2 of them are working together in other cases as well.”
I’m not sure one could read too much to it. Kennedy and Roberts were pretty much on the same page in the oral argument of Danforth.
“If only Stevens or Ginsburg had stepped down, the conservatives would control the court. If McCain wins in November, the Court could be firmly consevrative for the next 25 years”
What makes you sure that McCain would/will be able to nominate a justice that is solidly conservative?
Even if he were to , I don’t think it would be Stevens or Ginsburg but rather Souter that would retire.
Comment by Chee Foong Chew — February 24, 2008 @ 5:51 am