🚀 go-pugleaf

MYTH:

From August 12, 2004; alt.politics, alt.rush-limbaugh, milw.general,
wis.general, courts.usa, misc.legal, rial.misc.legal, courts.usa.federal

From buckeye-ELO@nospam.net (buckeye-ELO@nospam.net):
>The Future of the Establishment Clause
>By Erwin Chemerinsky
>http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring01/chemerinsky.html
>President George W. Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court are likely to
>change dramatically the law of the Establishment Clause. Conservatives on
>the Supreme Court such as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have
>repeatedly urged overruling precedents limiting aid to parochial schools
>and prohibiting school prayer. (See, e.g., Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches
>Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 398-99 (1993).) Currently, as
>evidenced by the Court's June 2000 decision in Mitchell v. Helms (120 S.
>Ct. 2530 (2000)), there are four Justices-Chief Justice Rehnquist and
>Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas-who desire a radical change in the law
>of the Establishment Clause. Thus, even one appointment to the Court could
>bring about this shift.

FACTS:
As revealed below
* O'Connor (also, Kennedy and Rehnquist) have shifted left to compensate
  in the past 2 years.
* O'Connor controls and moderates the court, winning all of the 5-4 votes
  of 2003, most of 2002 (nobody in a close 2nd).  What O'Connor wants,
  O'Connor generally gets.

(Graphic: Blind lady of justice, resembling O'Connor, holding 4
dimunitive justices in balance on left, and 4 other on right, all
of them squealing and yelping like puppy dogs.)

From misc.legal.moderated, reposted to soc.men, January 26, 2004

Who's The Most Powerful Judge? 2002 US Supreme Court Standings
 
This listing was compiled from the archive of rulings at FindLaw.  There
are 40 rulings tabulated in the total.  Not included are 26 unanimous
consent rulings, 12 per curiam rulings and 8 decisions where one or more
justices gave mixed rulings on different parts.
 
Amongst the 40 rulings included, there were 17 5-4 decisions.
 
2002 US Supreme Court Standings
 
Key:
Con = # of rulings consented
Dis = # of rulings dissented
Nil = # of rulings no decision given
Dec = # of deciding votes (i.e. consenting in 5-4 decisions)
 
         Con Dis Nil Dec
Kennedy   34   6   0  13
O'Connor  32   6   2  15
Rehnquist 29  11   0  12
Briar     27  12   1   7
Ginsburg  25  15   0   4
Souter    25  15   0   5
Thomas    25  15   0  11
Scalia    22  17   1  12
Stevens   22  18   0   6
 
And the winner for 2002 ... Justice Kennedy, by count; Justice
O'Connor by deciding votes (15 of the 17 5-4 votes issued in 2002).

-------------------

Analysis of 2003 US Supreme Court
 
Following up on this, and shedding some light on the situation, is
a closer analysis of the past year, 2003.
 
Again, per curiam rulings and rulings where one or more justices give
mixed decisions are excluded.  This leaves 61, of which 58 involved all
9 justices with the results on the number of consents (and deciding
votes in 5-4 decisions which there were 10 of):
   #1: O'Connor  54 (10)
   #2: Rehnquist 53 (6)
   #3: Kennedy   52 (6)
   #4: Souter    51 (6)
   #5: Ginsburg  46 (4) (consented in 2 rulings Breyer wasn't involved in)
   #6: Breyer    46 (5)
   #7: Stevens   45 (4)
   #8: Scalia    43 (4)
   #9: Thomas    42 (5)
 
Doing a Principle Components factor analysis on these 58 decisions
shows the alignments of the court in more detail:
 
Component #1: "Concurrence" accounts for 78.0% of the total variation
   Rehnquist .924
   Kennedy   .913
   Souter    .911
   O'Connor  .909
   Ginsburg  .881
   Stevens   .862
   Breyer    .860
   Scalia    .851
   Thomas    .831
 
Component #2: "Orientation", 10.3% of total variation
   Thomas    .478
   Scalia    .466
   Kennedy   .191
   Rehnquist .164
   O'Connor  .015
   Souter   -.309
   Stevens  -.317
   Ginsburg -.322
   Breyer   -.343
 
Component #3: "Pliability", 3.6% of total variation
   O'Connor  .263
   Kennedy   .216
   Rehnquist .207
   Souter    .081
   Breyer   -.090
   Stevens  -.123
   Scalia   -.172
   Thomas   -.229
   Ginsburg -.246
 
(Component #4 basically distinguishes Breyer vs. Stevens, #5
O'Connor vs. Rehnquist/Kennedy, #6 Breyers/Stevens vs. Souter/Ginsburg,
#7 identifiers Souter, #8 identifies Rehnquist, #9 Thomas vs. Scalia;
accounting respectively for 2.8%, 2.0%, 1.4%, 0.8%, 0.6% and 0.4% of
the total variation).
 
On coincidence measure: Thomas & Scalia agreed on all but 3 of the
rulings included, Kennedy & Rehnquist on all but 5, Souter & Ginsburg
on all but 7, Ginsburg & Breyer on all but 8, Ginsburg & Stevens,
O'Connor & Rehnquist, O'Connor & Souter each pair on all but 9.
 
Basically, the image drawn is of a court that has
           Scalia & Thomas on the far right
           Rehnquist & Kennedy on the right, with centrist tendencies
           Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens & Souter on the left,
           Souter showing some centrist tendencies
most significantly with
           O'Connor standing firmly in the middle calling the shots ...
           all 10 5-4 rulings in 2003, 15 of 17 5-4 rulings in 2002,
           and also the deciding vote of the 5-4 2000 Bush vs. Gore case.
 
The 2003 rulings matrix follows below (case citations not included in list):
x = Consent
. = Dissent
- = No decision
horizontal listing in the order:
O'Connor Rehnquist Kennedy Souter Ginsburg Breyer Stevens Scalia Thomas
 
7-0, 8-0 decisions
xxxxx-xxx
xxxxxxxx-
xxx-x-xxx
 
9-0 decisions
xxxxxxxxx 27 times
 
8-1 decisions
xxxxx.xxx
xxxxxx.xx
xxxxxxxx.
 
7-2 decisions
xxxxxxx.. 3 times
xxxx..xxx
xxxxx..xx
.xxxx.xxx
xx.xxx.xx
 
6-3 decisions
.xxxxxx.. 2 times
x.xxxxx..
xx.xxxx..
xxxx.xx..
xxxx.x.x.
xxxx...xx
xxx..x.xx
.xx.xx.xx
xxx...xxx
 
5-4 decisions
xxxx.x...
xx.xxx...
x..xxxx.. 3 times
x.xx..x.x
xxx....xx 4 times
 
For reference, the 2002 rulings matrix is also included below:
 
------------------
 
Listing of judges for the 40 rulings in the following order:
Briar Ginsburg Kennedy O'Connor Rehnquist Scalia Souter Stevens Thomas
 
x = consent, . = dissent, - = no decision
 
8-0 rulings
xxxxx-xxx
-xxxxxxxx
xxx-xxxxx
xxx-xxxxx
 
9-0 rulings
xxxxxxxxx 26 times
 
8-1 rulings
xxxxxxx.x
xxxxx.xxx
xxxx.xxxx
 
7-2 rulings
xxx.x.xxx
x.xxxxx.x
xxxxx.xx.
xxx..xxxx
 
6-3 rulings
.xx.xxx.x
xx.xx.xx. 2 times
xxxx..xx. 4 times
.xxxxx..x
xxxxx.x..
x.xxxx..x
xxxxx..x.
xxx.x.x.x
 
5-4 rulings
xx.x..xx. 4 times
x.x.xx..x
..xxxx..x 8 times
x.xxxx...
..x.xx.xx
..xx.xx.x
x.xxx..x.