Today, we start the second part of our ongoing analysis of agreement rates among the Justices since 1990 – the criminal docket. We proceed just as we did with the civil docket, tracking agreement rates in non-unanimous cases. “Disagreement” is defined as two Justices not voting exactly the same way with respect to the judgment
Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2014-2018
For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing the Justices’ agreement rates in divided civil cases across the period 1990 to 2018, working six years at a time. Today, we’ve reached our fifth and last post on the civil docket, reviewing the years 2014 to 2018. As we did last time, to facilitate comparisons for
Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2008-2013
Yesterday, we reviewed the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases for the years 2002 through 2007. Today, we’re looking at the agreement rates for the next six years – 2008 through 2013, with one change. Since we’re now getting into a period where nearly all the current members of the Court had begun their tenures,
Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 2002-2007
Last week, we began our review, six years at a time, of the Justices’ agreement rates in civil cases. First, we addressed the years 1990 through 1995, and then, we looked at the years 1996 through 2001. Today, we’re turning our attention to the civil agreement rates for the years 2002 to 2007.
During these
Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 1996-2001
Last time, we reviewed the Justices’ agreement rates – how often each possible combination of Justices, two at a time, voted together – in civil cases between 1990 and 1995. In this post, we’re looking at the same number for the years 1996 to 2001.
In Table 1007, we report the data for our first
Reviewing the Justices’ Agreement Rates in Civil Cases, 1990-1995
For the past few weeks, we’ve been looking at how often each member of the Court since 1990 voted with the majority in divided decisions on both the civil and criminal side, looking both for how closely aligned each Justice was with the majority of the Court, and perhaps a rough indicator of each Justice’s
Who Has Been the Bellwether Vote in Divided Criminal Cases (2004-2018)?
Last time, we began our review of the data on the criminal docket regarding how often each of the Justices voted with the majority in divided criminal cases between 1990 and 2003. Today, we’re reviewing the years 2004 through 2018.
In Table 1001, we review the most recent data for Justices Burke, Fitzgerald, Freeman, Garman,
Who Has Been the Bellwether Vote in Divided Criminal Cases (1990-2003)?
Last week, we reviewed the data showing how often each Justice voted with the majority in a divided civil case. This week, we’re looking at the criminal docket.
In Table 997, we review the numbers for five Justices – Bilandic, Calvo, Clark, Cunningham and Fitzgerald. Justice Bilandic was, for the most part, between sixty and
Who Has Been the Bellwether Vote in Divided Civil Cases (2004-2018)?
Last time, we began our examination of a new question: who has most often been a bellwether vote – a Justice who is nearly always in the majority in a divided decision – in civil cases? Then, we reviewed the years 1990-2003. Now, we’re taking a look at the years 2004-2018.
In Table 995, we
Who Has Been the Bellwether Vote in Divided Civil Cases (1990-2003)?
On the vast majority of appellate courts, there are one or two Justices of whom appellate specialists say “they’re the votes you’ve got to have” – or alternatively, “lose those votes and you’re hurting.” No matter the case, those Justices nearly always seem to be in the majority. There can be at least a couple