Sotomayor Likely 25-30% Improvement Over Bush Nominees

by: Chris Bowers

Tue May 26, 2009 at 16:42


In terms of actual rulings, is it possible to put a figure on how much of an improvement Sonia Sotomayor is likely to be over George Bush's two Supreme Court nominees? Even though predicting the voting tendencies of Supreme Court justices is famed for being difficult, the answer appears to be yes. The best guess is that Sotomayor will rule with progressives about 25-30% more often than a Bush nominee would have done.

My reason for this is taken primarily from the recent voting history of David Souter, who Sonia Sotomayor is replacing. The numbers that follow (taken from Scotus Wiki) depict the widest range of disagreement Souter had with other members of the Supreme Court from 2003-2008.

More in the extended entry

Chris Bowers :: Sotomayor Likely 25-30% Improvement Over Bush Nominees

2008 Souter Range: 19 / 48 (39.6% of all cases)
Low Disagreement: 4 (Ginsberg)
High Disagreement: 23 (Alito)

2007 Souter Range: 19 / 69 (27.9% of all cases)
Low Disagreement: 9 (Ginsburg)
High Disagreement: 28 (Thomas)

2006 Souter Range: 20 / 72 (27.8%)
Low Disagreement: 8 (Ginsburg and Breyer)
High Disagreement: 28 (Thomas)

2005 Souter 17 / 82 (20.7%)
Low Disagreement: 3 (O'Connor)
High Disagreement: 20 (Scalia)

2004 Souter Range: 18 / 80 (22.5%)
Low Disagreement: 10 (Ginsberg)
High Disagreement: 28 (Rehinquist)

2003 Souter Range: 23 / 77 (29.9%)
Low Disagreement: 3 (Ginsberg)
High Disagreement: 28 (Scalia)

Here is what I take from this data:

  1. Toward the end of his term, Souter was most closely aligned with the female members of the Supreme Court. He consistently had very little disagreement with Ginsburg and O'Connor. So, it makes sense that he is being replaced by a woman.

  2. Souter's level of disagreement with the most right-wing member of the court was stable, hovering just under 20 cases a year. This represents 25-30% of all cases.

  3. If we assume that Sotomayor will continue in Souter's footsteps and rule more like Ginsberg than any other justice (which is more likely that Sotomayor being another Stephens or a swing vote like Kennedy), and that a third Bush nominee would have rulings like Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas (which is likely given the similarity between the two Bush nominees and the two right-wing nominees who preceded them), then it seems likely that Sotomayor will side with progressives on about 19 or 20 more cases a year, or 25-30% of all cases, than a third Bush Justice would have done.
It is a crude estimate, but I believe one that will prove to be fairly accurate. Over the course of her career, having Sotomayor on the court instead of a third Bush nominee will end up being worth about 400-500 different rulings on cases, assuming that she stays on the court about 20-25 years. With about 20% of all rulings being 5-4 these days, that could mean up to 100 Supreme Court cases swung in the direction of progressives by this pick.

As such, in all likelihood, among Obama administration actions this year, nominating Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court nomination will be rivaled only by health care reform and climate change legislation in terms of long-term impact.


Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
a wash? (4.00 / 1)
If we assume that Sotomayor will continue in Souter's footsteps I have a hard time thinking of this as an administration action having long-term impact (despite the likelihood of Sotomayor sitting on the SCOTUS for many years.) While Souter (and every justice) obviously has to leave the court at some point, they could, theoretically, stay on the court indefinitely. Sotomayor seems like the sort of non-decision that Obama excels at. I'm not clear how this "could mean up to 100 Supreme Court cases swung in the direction of progressives": that would be true if we expected Sotomayor to rule with progressives 50-60% more than a Bush pick or if we had been going on the assumption that Obama's pick would be identical to a Bush one (which would be disappointing to say the least.)

looking at the chart for '07 (0.00 / 0)
It looks like everyone agrees (or rather votes the same way) in at least half the cases, so it is hard to get a really big swing.  The worst disagreement was Ginsburg-Thomas (43%) and Stevens-Thomas (41%).  Roberts, to pick the less opposed Bush choice, only had a 31% disagreement with Ginsburg.  (28% with Souter.)

Think that over, 69% of the cases that year Roberts and Ginsburg voted the same way.  



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


% (0.00 / 0)
While there may be some cases where a true liberal would have voted against decisions now decided 9-0, it seems pretty safe to take the 9-0 decisions out of the calculus.  I'm not sure what that ration is, but based on your numbers I'm guessing roughly 40% of court decisions are 9-0, so we are only talking about the remaining 60%.

I think that means Chris' 25-30% improvement can be multiplied by 1/.6=1.67, for 41-50% improvement of those decision that matter.


[ Parent ]
I don't buy it (4.00 / 1)
Sotomayor might be like Souter. She might not. Hell, everybody assumed Souter would be a rigid conservative.

Looking at her record is helpful. Statistical analyses like this don't strike me as especially useful in terms of predictive value.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


there are limits to demographic analysis (0.00 / 0)
Toward the end of his term, Souter was most closely aligned with the female members of the Supreme Court. He consistently had very little disagreement with Ginsburg and O'Connor. So, it makes sense that he is being replaced by a woman.

you don't think there might be a third variable involved in the correlation between alignment of judicial decisions and biological sex ;)  setting aside questions of sample size.

anyway, my primary concern with Sotomayor is that not that she's won't be on the court very long but that she will be on the court too long.  If politics shifts in a more populist and democratic direction, I would rather have a replacement for her in 10 years rather than in 20 or 30.  I've only read a little, but I don't think I will perceive her as a 'moderate liberal' or 'progressive' even on relative grounds in 10 years.

I also find it disturbing that the Obama administration has stated? (I think?) that it doesn't care about opposition to the nomination coming from the left.  we need to do more.


not sure where you are going here (4.00 / 3)
Of course, it would be nice to fantasize about replacing her with a more liberal justice in ten years.  Then again, why not dream of replacing Alito?  I can't imagine that a strategy of Democrats appointing old justices and Republicans appointing young ones is going to work out well.

It's true that the right had success by opposing Miers, but only I think because she had real problems, and also because they have had the experience of Republican appointees turning moderate/liberal. While I can imagine her being rejected if some scandal turns up, I can't imagine her being opposed for not being leftist enough in the Senate we have.

 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
what i am saying is (0.00 / 0)
that tactically, sotomayor makes sense as a pick right now, but her politics are atrocious by my standards based on what i read about her decisions (as are the politics of basically everone on the court).  

Of course y0ou want to replace Alito - you want to replace all of them - the whole court sucks and the political derivative - the trend - is in our favour.  but you have no agency over how long alito lasts unless you want to radically restructure the relationship between the judiciary and the executive or congress or broader societry as FDR did.  You do with a new appointment - you have some input / agency  (i.e. democracy)

So in that vein it's better to have acceptable appoiuntments that won't last as long now rather than acceptable appointments that will be there long enough to become center-right/conservative members of the court by virtue of the politics around the court changing, even if they don't.    It's exactly the point you raised - THIS congress won't mount any opposition from the left and quite frankly neither will civil society.  So I would rather have a congress and society in 10 years replace whoever gets picked than someone who will last 30 years.

Or perhaps she's spectacular and a closet radical that's waiting until the moment's right to shed her prosecutor-appeals judge-pro-corporate IP law coccoon but personally, I will hold my nose and deal with someone with bad politics now but would prefer they weren't on the court forever.


[ Parent ]
oh i see (0.00 / 0)
you're using a partisan analysis, but i'm using a social analysis.  i think both parties are going to have to shift to being more progressive over the next decade or so the way they both shifted to being more conservative over the past 25-30 years.  

and you don't really have much control over when an SC justice retires (which is actually the fundamental problem - they should havfe some limit on how long they serve, not a lifetime appointment that lets them decide when they want to quit).  So yeah, all else equal, i would rather have a democratic president than a republican president pick a justice, but the party of the president isn't the only thing that's a factor (e.g. the person she's replacing was picked by a republican, no?), and it's one that you don't actually have much control over.  

Further, the partisan approach to thinking about SC selections reinforces the strength of the two-parties-hovering-around-a-centre model in a destructive way taht uses SC appointments as a baton in every presidential election to wield against people who think both parties are too far to the right, which is not right in my mind.  It may be impossible to get an alternative without a lot of political restructuring, but it will be impossible to even get a mild improvement like fair redistricting and campaigns that don't cost as much as a bailout :) if all the tools for opposition are squelched with fear tactics about a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice.


[ Parent ]
So Bush nominees are now the standard? (0.00 / 0)
The doubtless-correct prediction that Sotomayor won't vote with the 4 1/2 right-wing extremists on the court is not designed to fill one with joy.  There are enough centrists on the court already, which hasn't had a progressive since Brennan and Marshall.  I don't suppose we can do a statistical analysis, but perhaps we should ask how her votes would differ from Karlan's or Koh's or Sullivan's (or Brennan's and Marshall's, for that matter).  

No confusion, pls: Her name is GinsbUrg! (0.00 / 0)
I guess it's a common mistake to write the judge's name as GinsbErg ("berg"= German for "mountain"), but it's really GinsbUrg ("burg"= German for "castle"). Its somewhat unusual to use both spellings repeatedly in the same table, though...
:D

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter

SEIU will donate $1 to OpenLeft for each individual who signs up for their campaign to pass health care for all Americans. Sign up here.
Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS


MENU

OpenLeft in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.