Adam Feldman, an expert in Supreme Court statistics and analysis affiliated with Empirical SCOTUS, joins to discuss the intriguing concept of a 3-3-3 court and the complexities of measuring judicial ideology. He dives into the vital role of Chief Justice John Roberts and the dynamics of power within the Court. The conversation also explores the distinctions between political and judicial conservatism and the significant trends in unanimous decisions despite increasing ideological divisions. Feldman sheds light on the implications of these shifts for the legal landscape.
Chief Justice Roberts is central to Supreme Court discourse, significantly shaping legal outcomes through influential opinions and coalitions.
The concept of a '333 court' reflects a complex ideological balance among justices, complicating the categorization of their political leanings.
Despite perceptions of division, a substantial number of Supreme Court cases continue to be resolved unanimously, highlighting underlying collaboration among justices.
Deep dives
The Significance of Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice Roberts is highlighted as the author of the most important opinions on the Supreme Court, as determined through various metrics. His significant writing is evidenced by the length of his opinions, the volume of amicus briefs submitted, and the incidence of separate opinions associated with his majority writings. Recent cases like Trump vs. United States reinforce this notion, showcasing Roberts' influential role in shaping legal discourse. Despite the shifting dynamics of the court, including the emergence of Kavanaugh as a pivotal vote, Roberts remains central to discussions regarding the court's trajectory.
Understanding the '333 Court' Framework
The podcast delves into the concept of a '333 court' which implies a balance among three conservative justices, three liberal justices, and three that serve in a middle ground. The similarities in voting patterns among Chief Justice Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett suggest they frequently align, forming a coalition that impacts key decisions. Both Kavanaugh and Barrett are noted for their consistency in majority votes alongside Roberts, indicating a bloc that guides pivotal court outcomes. However, the complexity lies in defining the ideology and character of the justices, with ongoing debates about their respective positions on the political spectrum.
Trends in Judicial Opinions and Workload
Recent trends show a decline in the number of cases the Supreme Court hears each term, reflecting a shift in the judicial landscape. Despite the decrease in case volume, the rise in the submission of amicus briefs indicates that the cases currently being heard are of heightened importance. Additionally, justices are increasingly writing separate opinions, suggesting a diverse range of perspectives even among the conservative block. The combination of these trends reveals a Supreme Court that is addressing more significant and politically charged issues, even as they hear fewer cases overall.
Evaluating Judicial Conservatism and Legal Outcomes
The discussion contrasts political conservatism with judicial conservatism, emphasizing that contemporary justices may exhibit diverse ideological leanings beyond party affiliation. The complexities of labeling justices strictly as conservative or liberal are underscored by instances where supposed conservative rulings align with more liberal outcomes, reflecting a nuanced legal philosophy. This intersection poses challenges in quantifying judicial ideology and emphasizes the role individual justices play in shaping legal precedents. Such complexities suggest a call for a deeper understanding of the justices' voting behavior rather than oversimplified political categorizations.
Civility and Consensus within the Court
Despite the prevailing narrative of a sharply divided Supreme Court, evidence suggests that unanimous and consensus decisions continue to characterize a significant portion of the rulings. The podcast reveals that between one-third to one-half of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously, highlighting a backdrop of collaboration among justices. The existence of a core group of justices who frequently align in their votes suggests that fundamental agreements persist, even in a contentious political environment. This consensus, particularly in non-ideologically divisive cases, prompts consideration of whether recent increases in divided rulings represent genuine ideological divergence or just the nature of more complex legal landscapes.
Adam Feldman of Empirical SCOTUSand Optimized Legal Consulting joins Sarah and David to discuss the concept of a 3-3-3 Supreme Court and the challenges of measuring ideology.
Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including Sarah’s Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here.
