SCOTUS -- Surprisingly Unified, and Surprisingly Bi-Partisan

[4Q Basket Case]

I have to confess, a factoid at the end of a WSJ editorial caught me off guard. Following up on some surprising unanimous rulings released last week, it said that 45.8% of SCOTUS rulings in the last term were unanimous.

Side Note: SCOTUS terms are not on a calendar year. They run from the first Monday in October to the next year's first Monday in October. So October of 2024 is the last one on which we have full information.

I was under the impression that SCOTUS was divided along partisan lines, and was clearly wrong on that. At least for the term ended October, 2024. So I checked previous terms. 2021 was the last year under 40% unanimous, at 29%. Turns out, over time, SCOTUS unanimity ranges from 30% to 50%, with most years clustering around the 40% - 45% range.

I've said on this forum that you can't get those guys to agree 9-0 that water was wet. That's wrong, and I stand corrected.

In my brief research, I saw where the general consensus is that the Court is currently 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. So they looked at the term's 6-3 votes -- 12 decisions, roughly 20% of all cases. Of those cases, only 6 (about 10% of all cases) followed the conventional wisdom predicting 6 conservatives against 3 liberals. IOW, among all 6-3 rulings, about half the time at least one justice crossed the expected ideological line and voted with the other side.

So contrary to what both progressive left and MAGA right bray, SCOTUS is surprisingly internally consistent in its thinking, and justices are surprisingly independent in their voting.

It's hard to believe that Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and especially Alito would agree with Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan (and vice versa). But they do so unanimously almost half the time. And in a significant number of non-unanimous decisions, they don't vote according to expected ideological lines.

I would never have thought this. But the data is the data. Hard to argue with.

 

[Huckleberry]

I have to confess, a factoid at the end of a WSJ editorial caught me off guard. Following up on some surprising unanimous rulings released last week, it said that 45.8% of SCOTUS rulings in the last term were unanimous.

Side Note: SCOTUS terms are not on a calendar year. They run from the first Monday in October to the next year's first Monday in October. So October of 2024 is the last one on which we have full information.

I was under the impression that SCOTUS was divided along partisan lines, and was clearly wrong on that. At least for the term ended October, 2024. So I checked previous terms. 2021 was the last year under 40% unanimous, at 29%. Turns out, over time, SCOTUS unanimity ranges from 30% to 50%, with most years clustering around the 40% - 45% range.

I've said on this forum that you can't get those guys to agree 9-0 that water was wet. That's wrong, and I stand corrected.

In my brief research, I saw where the general consensus is that the Court is currently 6 conservatives and 3 liberals. So they looked at the term's 6-3 votes -- 12 decisions, roughly 20% of all cases. Of those cases, only 6 (about 10% of all cases) followed the conventional wisdom predicting 6 conservatives against 3 liberals. IOW, among all 6-3 rulings, about half the time at least one justice crossed the expected ideological line and voted with the other side.

So contrary to what both progressive left and MAGA right bray, SCOTUS is surprisingly internally consistent in its thinking, and justices are surprisingly independent in their voting.

It's hard to believe that Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and especially Alito would agree with Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan (and vice versa). But they do so unanimously almost half the time. And in a significant number of non-unanimous decisions, they don't vote according to expected ideological lines.

I would never have thought this. But the data is the data. Hard to argue with.

Here's an interesting article from National Review:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/three-unanimous-conservative-opinions-by-liberal-justices/

 

[crimsonaudio]

I was surprised a number of years ago when I read that about half of all SCOTUS rulings are unanimous (over the long term).

 

[oldtimetider]

I tend to think that those who make it to the top echelon of the American legal system are institutionalists at heart with a real reverence for the law and for the Constitution. I was particularly impressed with Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing several years ago and recall thinking, this lady is sharp, prepared, and will not be influenced by anyone or anything except her interpretation of the laws as they're written. I hope it's the case. The SCOTUS will have to be strong in the coming months and years.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://www.cato.org/blog/six-unanimous-high-court-decisions

Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

 

[jthomas666]

I was surprised a number of years ago when I read that about half of all SCOTUS rulings are unanimous (over the long term).

The bulk of the unanimous decisions were likely based on procedural issues (standing, jurisdiction, etc.) rather than interpretation of the law. Eliminate those cases and the my guess is that the percentage drops dramatically.

 

[jthomas666]

I tend to think that those who make it to the top echelon of the American legal system are institutionalists at heart with a real reverence for the law and for the Constitution. I was particularly impressed with Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing several years ago and recall thinking, this lady is sharp, prepared, and will not be influenced by anyone or anything except her interpretation of the laws as they're written. I hope it's the case. The SCOTUS will have to be strong in the coming months and years.

Barrett has been a pleasant surprise, but if you are looking to the Supreme Court for some kind of salvation, best prepare for disappointment.

 

[oldtimetider]

Barrett has been a pleasant surprise, but if you are looking to the Supreme Court for some kind of salvation, best prepare for disappointment.

..agreed. Not looking for anything other than a reasonable interpretation of the laws and the Constitution. Whether or not those interpretations will be heeded is another question altogether.

 

[lowend]

It's almost as if the majority of the country could get along if the power hungry elites in BOTH parties would stop fanning the flames of division.

 

[crimsonaudio]

It's almost as if the majority of the country could get along if the power hungry elites in BOTH parties would stop fanning the flames of division.

I swear, many times it's difficult to believe the two opposites aren't working together to divide and exacerbate the slight differences in the majority in the middle.

 

[bamamc1]

Barrett has been a pleasant surprise, but if you are looking to the Supreme Court for some kind of salvation, best prepare for disappointment.

Well as the great and reverent Barry Hussein Obama put it: “Elections have consequences.”

 

[Padreruf]

https://www.cato.org/blog/six-unanimous-high-court-decisions

Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

Read this and looked over Cato's principles, etc. Will make for some interesting reading...thanks for the link.

 

[jthomas666]

..agreed. Not looking for anything other than a reasonable interpretation of the laws and the Constitution. Whether or not those interpretations will be heeded is another question altogether.

Again, be prepared for disappointment.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The brutal reality is that despite all the hair pulling over "decisions that didn't go our way," the Court itself is hardly the naked partisan body we're being told by the side who doesn't like the most decisions (amazingly enough, comb through newspapers in the 1960s and you'll find the 'right' saying the same things about the Warren court).

The reality is that very few rulings fall into an ideological/political struggle. Those, however, are the ones you hear about the most because of all the whining. But this has always been SCOTUS for most of its existence anyway.

The only reason people are surprised to learn "wow, most of their decisions weren't even close" is because they hear online every day about "this one" or "that one" that somebody doesn't like.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The brutal reality is that despite all the hair pulling over "decisions that didn't go our way," the Court itself is hardly the naked partisan body we're being told by the side who doesn't like the most decisions (amazingly enough, comb through newspapers in the 1960s and you'll find the 'right' saying the same things about the Warren court).

The reality is that very few rulings fall into an ideological/political struggle. Those, however, are the ones you hear about the most because of all the whining. But this has always been SCOTUS for most of its existence anyway.

The only reason people are surprised to learn "wow, most of their decisions weren't even close" is because they hear online every day about "this one" or "that one" that somebody doesn't like.

I was only a child at the time and didn't have a true grasp of the issues of the day. But I'm old enough to remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth over a lot of the Warren Court's decisions.

 

[jthomas666]

The brutal reality is that despite all the hair pulling over "decisions that didn't go our way," the Court itself is hardly the naked partisan body we're being told by the side who doesn't like the most decisions (amazingly enough, comb through newspapers in the 1960s and you'll find the 'right' saying the same things about the Warren court).

The reality is that very few rulings fall into an ideological/political struggle. Those, however, are the ones you hear about the most because of all the whining. But this has always been SCOTUS for most of its existence anyway.

The only reason people are surprised to learn "wow, most of their decisions weren't even close" is because they hear online every day about "this one" or "that one" that somebody doesn't like.

For the most part, I would agree with you. But in recent years there have been a host of decisions that were clearly, even unabashedly partisan (Citizens United, the Shell Doctrine, Presidential Immunity, Dobbs, Federal funding for religious charter schools, just to name a few off the top of my head.).

Granted, that perception is likely colored by the egregious ethical lapses that the right is too happy to ignore. Also, the right shoves test cases into the system as quickly as possible in order to get the case in front of a friendly Supreme Court.