Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Always Right; steveegg; joesbucks
With the close of an remarkable streak of near unanimity, it's time for the fourth installment tracking agreement between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. There are now 44 signed rulings of the Supreme Court.

************************

Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Marshall v. Marshall

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Holmes v. South Carolina

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–C.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

Brigham City v. Stuart

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

Garcetti v. Ceballos

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

************************

So! After 44 signed rulings, 41 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals.

Of the above 9 rulings Roberts and Thomas were in agreement 100% of the time.

In S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia joined as to all but Part III-C. (so close - d'oh!)

So, drumroll please!

Roberts/Scalia: 90.244% (agree in 37 of 41)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.927% (agree in 34 of 41)

After 44 signed rulings in 41 of which all three participated.

And, yet again, for the sake of curiosity:

Roberts/Kennedy: 87.805%
Roberts/Souter: 85.366%

Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!

895 posted on 05/31/2006 10:18:49 PM PDT by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 894 | View Replies ]


To: Always Right; steveegg; joesbucks
Yep, it's that time of month again. Time for the fifth installment tracking agreement between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. There are now 55 signed rulings of the Supreme Court. We're almost there!

************************

Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part III. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Zedner v. United States

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–A–2. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

House v. Bell

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, inwhich SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Hill v. McDonough

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Hudson v. Michigan

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, III, and IV. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

Rapanos v. United States

SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Davis v. Washington

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Samson v. California

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined.

************************

So again! After 55 signed rulings, 52 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals. Technically, we could also count the per curiam ruling in Youngblood v. West Virginia, as Scalia filed a dissent that was joined by Thomas (and Kennedy filed his own separate dissent). For consistency that one's excluded, but if it were factored in then it'd be one more case where Roberts differed from both Scalia and Thomas, as the Chief Justice joined the per curiam.

Now, by contrast to last installment's unanimity, the above 11 rulings were a mess! These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas:

In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., Roberts and Scalia joined the majority ruling by Kennedy with Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In Zedner v. United States, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Alito while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

In Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

In Davis v. Washington, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Scalia while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

OK, drumroll please!

Roberts/Scalia: 88.462% (agree in 46 of 52)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.692% (agree in 43 of 52)

After 55 signed rulings in 52 of which all three participated.

And, once again, for the sake of curiosity:

Roberts/Kennedy: 80.769% (agree in 42 of 52)
Roberts/Souter: 76.923% (agree in 40 of 52)

And, while we're at it, Alito and Roberts parted ways in two rulings above, so for the 21 cases where both have participated, the agreement is:

Roberts/Alito: 90.476% (agree in 19 of 21)

Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!

PS. When factoring in the new per curiam rulings and the consolidated cases, the maximum possible number of signed rulings for the term that would apply to our purposes is now 68. Therefore, with 9 deviations between Thomas and Roberts, our wager is settled (in my favor) at least so far as the two of them.

896 posted on 06/20/2006 12:46:55 AM PDT by AntiGuv ("..I do things for political expediency.." - Sen. John McCain on FOX News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 895 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson