4 ms·
Sure, most cases aren't polarizing, but that doesn't mean that the law is objective -- the other 30% of cases proves as much. Personally, I'd be more interesti
by panda-giddiness 5y ago
Sure, most cases aren't polarizing, but that doesn't mean that the law is objective -- the other 30% of cases proves as much.
Personally, I'd be more interesting in knowing how many cases split 5/4 (or 6/3) the obvious way versus how many cases were unanimous or nearly so.
- dvt 5y ago9-0 is far more common than 5-4, this is pretty common knowledge for anyone that follows SCOTUS, but here's a source[1]. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...
- panda-giddiness 5y agoSorry, I see now that my comment was unclear. I mean of the 5/4 splits, I'd be curious what proportion of cases split 5/4 in the expected manner (Democratic vs Republican appointees) versus other alignments (e.g., Sotomayor, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Ginsburg versus the rest).
- dragonwriter 5y agoWhat you'd actually expect with political parties that aren't particularly cohesive or consistent over time isn't partisan consistency but that judges would vote consistently with the position of their appointing President on issues politically salient at the time of their appointment and less predictably otherwise. Which, it turns out, is what they tend to do.