Dixon v. United States
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Burlington, N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Woodford v. Ngo
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Kansas v. Marsh
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Washington v. Recuenco
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined.
Randall v. Sorrell
BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to all but Parts II–B–1 and II–B–2. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts II and III.
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined.
So, after 64 signed rulings of the Supreme Court, 61 count for our purposes, with three excluded due to recusals. These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for the latest nine rulings:
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, Scalia issued the majority ruling while Roberts and Thomas both joined Alito's dissent.
In Randall v. Sorrell, Roberts joined Breyer's majority ruling (Roberts was the only other justice to join in full) while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Scalia.
So, with two more departures between Roberts and Scalia, it would seem that our wager is settled in my favor:
Roberts/Scalia: 86.885% (agree in 53 of 61)
Roberts/Thomas: 83.607% (agree in 51 of 61)
Here are the three other alignment summaries tracked over the past installments:
Roberts/Kennedy: 81.967% (agree in 50 of 61)
Roberts/Souter: 70.492% (agree in 43 of 61)
Roberts/Alito: 86.666% (agree in 26 of 30)
The final installment will post once the last five rulings of the term have been issued. For the wrap-up I will calculate the alignment between Roberts and all the other justices that he served with on the Supreme Court this term. As a bonus, I'll do the same with Alito.
The percentage are nice but somewhat of arbitrary indication. Where the rubber hits the road is in a case like today's Kansas Death Penalty case. Alito and Roberts are no Souter. If O'Conner was still on the court, it might have gone the other way.
Seriously, somebody should've done a bet with Ann. Her whole premise that Chief Justice Roberts would be the second coming of Justice Souter just got shot full of holes.
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined, and in which GINSBURG, J., joined as to Part II.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II–A and III, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, AND BREYER, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–C, and an opinion withrespect to Part II–D, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined as to Part III.
Beard v. Banks
BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and SOUTER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
STEVENS, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I through IV, VI through VI–D–iii, VI–D–v, and VII, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts V and VI–D–iv, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to all but Parts I, II–C–1, and III–B–2. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined as to Parts I through III. ROBERTS, C. J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Clark v. Arizona
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which BREYER, J., joined except as to Parts III–B and III–C and the ultimate disposition. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
So! After a total of 69 signed rulings, 65 count for our purposes, with Hamdan v. Rumsfeld joining the other three already excluded due to recusals, in this case by Roberts who heard the case at the Circuit Court level. These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for the final four rulings:
In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, Roberts filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, while Scalia joined by Thomas filed a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
In Beard v. Banks, Roberts joined Breyer's majority ruling while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Scalia.
So, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 84.615% (agree in 55 of 65)
Roberts/Thomas: 81.538% (agree in 53 of 65)
Here are the other alignment summaries I've routinely tracked above:
Roberts/Kennedy: 80.000% (agree in 52 of 65)
Roberts/Souter: 69.231% (agree in 45 of 65)
Roberts/Alito: 87.878% (agree in 29 of 33)
Now, I will forego calculating any more alignment percentages and instead defer to this SCOTUSblog Voting Summary. Note that there's a slight deviation between my figures above and the figures at SCOTUSblog. This is because for our purposes a case was totally excluded if any of the three principal justices recused himself, whereas at SCOTUSblog for each justice pairing all cases are of course counted if the two justices participated.
Anyhow here's the SCOTUSblog calculation for Full Agreement, with a parenthetical giving the figure for agreement In Part, In Full, or In Judgment:
Roberts/Scalia: 85% (91%)
Roberts/Thomas: 83% (92%)
Roberts/Kennedy: 81% (89%)
Roberts/Souter: 75% (78%)
Roberts/Alito: 89% (95%)
Very briefly, one might protest that the second figure is more relevant, but for the purposes of our wager I gave ample opportunity to go with something less than "full agreement" and I probably wouldn't have taken that bet in any case. I would've likely declined stating that I expected "agreement in judgment" to be right around 90% for our trio, though I might've taken it if I were in a daring mood - who knows! But in actuality, my participation hinged on the very clear "full agreement" standard we agreed upon, which wasn't my idea to begin with. So, no whining!
Whatever the case, as is my custom you are released from our wager so far as I'm concerned. I make bets like this more for mental discipline than anything else.
And, that's a wrap. w00t!