With the exceptions of Powell, O’Connor and Kennedy every SCT Justice of the last 50 years was wildly predictable on the important cases. And the Justices know this and make sure their docket has mostly non-ideological cases so folks won’t catch on.
-
-
-
I just want to push back on which cases are "important," and draw attention to Scalia's votes in several criminal procedure cases.
-
I’ve got a whole chapter in my book on Scalia’s criminal procedure cases. It is a mixed bag, and his confrontation clause cases, important doctrinally, help few criminal defendants
-
The impact of the confrontation cases is doubtlessly lessened by the vanishing criminal trial. But I would not want to understate the impact of the Sixth Amendment sentencing cases. My apologies if you discuss this in your book-I haven't had a chance to read it yet-but will soon.
-
Will be interested to hear your thoughts!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I would be interested in the data. Given the general data on voter ignorance, it seems unlikely the median voter (on an axis of relevant knowledge) could make such predictions, but I am prepared to be surprised.
-
I wonder whether
@IlyaSomin knows if there is any relevant empirical work. -
Data show most voters can't even name most justices, much less predict their votes. Those who do know & care tend to be base voters, not median/swing voters.
-
I would bet they know that Trump wants to appoint Justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade and Obama would be much less likely to do so. For many voters that may be all the information they need.
-
For some. But those who care that intensely about Roe also tend to be base voters. Plus many are ignorant of less prominent ways SCOTUS decisions have big effects.
-
that doesn't negate the fact that, in my initial response to
@MichaelMcGough3, that voters have more than adequate cues to figure out if a Supreme Court Justice is likely to vote in ways they prefer or not. -
There, I think much depends on what you consider "adequate" and what it means for them to "prefer." Also on how attentive the voters are to various cues (many are not).
-
For more than a generation, knowing nothing more than "the party of the President" and "the party controlling the Senate" has provided more than adequate information about how a Justice will decide cases.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Trump made explicit promise about at least one vote.
-
I talk to non-lawyers all the time, will do so for 3 hours tomorrow with
@PeteDominick. Rick is right. On the big issues they know where the GOP justices stand, where the Dems stand, and how they’ll vote. The rest is just dribble to them (as it should be). - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, I don't know how that could happen with so many leftists lying about what originalism is.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.