Using a newly assemble dataset spanning from 1791 to 2025, this article looks at alignments between justice pairs across time and the impact these have on the Court's decisions.
Impressive data visualization showing how SCOTUS polarization isn't just anecdotal. The network centrality analysis revealing Kennedy's 16 terms as most central versus basically nobody filling that role now is stark. One thing that's understated here is how the *variance* in alignment exploded even more than the mean dropped, which suggests the Court isn't just more divided but divided in a fundamentally diferent structural way. The birthright citizenship case prediction feels spot on though lowkey hoping Barrett surprises everyone.
That's a great point to underscore. As the Court shifted to new actors the center dropped off and the lack of one justice to fill that void increased the noise which plays out in greater variance.
I have to wonder, though, whether the recent trend of the Roberts Court - not just to ignore lower court findings but to disparage judges it finds “disobedient” - is an aberration or a new standard?
Calling out lower court judges is definitely new but it runs in the same framework as the lower court judges increasingly questioning the justices' decisions in a way that they haven't in the past (for better or worse).
The shadow docket is a factor in some lower court judges' calculi (NBC News article confirms this) but this is layered and complex (more requests from the administration than before, need for quick turn arounds, changes in guidance from the justices -- Kavanaugh in particular). This seems to be an evolution which is inherently serpentine.
Impressive data visualization showing how SCOTUS polarization isn't just anecdotal. The network centrality analysis revealing Kennedy's 16 terms as most central versus basically nobody filling that role now is stark. One thing that's understated here is how the *variance* in alignment exploded even more than the mean dropped, which suggests the Court isn't just more divided but divided in a fundamentally diferent structural way. The birthright citizenship case prediction feels spot on though lowkey hoping Barrett surprises everyone.
That's a great point to underscore. As the Court shifted to new actors the center dropped off and the lack of one justice to fill that void increased the noise which plays out in greater variance.
I have to wonder, though, whether the recent trend of the Roberts Court - not just to ignore lower court findings but to disparage judges it finds “disobedient” - is an aberration or a new standard?
Calling out lower court judges is definitely new but it runs in the same framework as the lower court judges increasingly questioning the justices' decisions in a way that they haven't in the past (for better or worse).
Agreed. But isn’t it necessary to factor in the unusual amount of those opaque shadow docket decisions that explain their reasoning?
The shadow docket is a factor in some lower court judges' calculi (NBC News article confirms this) but this is layered and complex (more requests from the administration than before, need for quick turn arounds, changes in guidance from the justices -- Kavanaugh in particular). This seems to be an evolution which is inherently serpentine.
Agreed … but are these “emergencies” really emergencies, and is the “need for quick turnarounds” really a need?
The Texas gerrymandering case is one year away from elections.
Ah, from “Using comprehensive pairwise alignment data” to trace today’s SCOTUS going pear shaped. Intriguing research.