As an appeals court judge, Samuel Alito has compiled a massive record that includes more than 240 opinions. Of these, the most illuminating may well be his 41 dissents -- opinions that he has written by himself, rejecting the views of his colleagues."Almost uniformly" -- what does that mean? There were 41 cases. In how many of the dissenting opinion did he take a position that Sunstein could code as "more conservative" than that taken by the rest of the panel (that is, the other two other judges from what, Sunstein concedes, is the "relatively liberal" Third Circuit)?
When they touch on issues that split people along political lines, Alito's dissents show a remarkable pattern: They are almost uniformly conservative. In the overwhelming majority of cases, he has urged a more conservative position than that of his colleagues. In his dissents, at least, he has been a conservative's conservative -- not always in his reasoning, which tends to be modest, but in his ultimate conclusions.
The WaPo piece doesn't give the number, but on the radio show -- which you can listen to here -- Sunstein says twice that "two dozen" of the dissents go in the conservative direction. 24 as compared to 17 is a "remarkable pattern"? 58% of the time is "almost uniformly"? I don't get it!
Or is it that there is some subcategory of the 41 cases that Sunstein viewed as containing "issues that split people along political lines"? So how many dissents in fifteen years are we talking about? Perhaps it's 27, because he did also mention that there were 3 cases in which he coded Alito's dissent as more liberal than the rest of the panel.
Can someone replicate the coding and counting of the Alito dissents? Apparently, it's a one-day job.
Also, when a judge dissents is he "rejecting the views of his colleagues"? Judges' conclusions upon analyzing legal issues aren't "views," and a disagreement among a panel of three judges isn't properly characterized as a "rejection" aimed at colleagues. They simply reached different conclusions and are saying as much.
UPDATE: Cass Sunstein emails:
In terms of counting: I looked over 41 dissents (not including the 14 or so concurring and dissenting opinions). Some of them are easy to code in ideological terms; some of them aren't. Somewhere between 13 and 20 are best treated as "neutral," that is, no ideological valence at all. Of those with an ideological valence, somewhere between 100% and 85% are to the majority's right. My best estimate is on the high end of that range. -- Reasonable people can differ, of course, about the precise calculation, but by any objective count, I think, the overwhelming majority (of those with an ideological valence) are to the right -- and more important, in a distinctive and interesting way, that is, they ask for deference to powerful institutions (and hence show little or no discernible libertarian streak). -- I confess that I wasn't looking (or hoping) for this pattern. It really surprised me. I really want to be in favor of Alito and haven't made up my mind -- this is a just a source of concern.
So, spread out over 15 years on the bench, we're talking about maybe one case a year. I'm not so ready to feel concerned about this. I'd like to see the actual cases. It could be that Alito is just turning out workmanlike analysis where the other two judges were stretching for a liberal result. Are the dissents on panels with especially liberal judges or in cases where it was tempting to the majority to overreach in a liberal direction? Are the dissents clustered in his early or later years or evenly spread over the years? Somehow these statistics don't speak to me other than to say: examine this more closely.
Posts
39 comments:
And generally, don't liberals approve of zoning?
Is it really a one-day job? Simply asserting that the positions must be the conservative ones seems like it could be done much quicker.
"Alito's dissents show a remarkable pattern: They are almost uniformly conservative. In the overwhelming majority of cases, he has urged a more conservative position than that of his colleagues."
Yipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Did you try e-mailing Prof. Sunstein and asking him for a list?
Incredible.
"Cass" rhymes with the region from which he pulled his study.
It seems from listening to and reading Sunstein he defines "conservative" as anyone who doesn't agree with him.
The LA Times found a number of Democratic judges who've worked with Alito and think he's a good egg.
Having grown up during Daly the Elder's reign, my view on politics is jaded. What makes you think it's a "one day job?"
Were I truly cynical, I could surmise that the left had prepared chop papers on ALL the first line candidates before-hand.
I'll quibble with your quibble about the distinction between "views" and "conclusions." Seems to me that judicial opinions are usually both. The holdings being the conclusions; the discussion/analysis of the facts and law that lead to the holdings being something I'd think could fairly be labeled the views.
In terms of rejecting views, it seems to me that when a judge declines to join an opinion it is a rejection of that opinion and the views it incorporates. However, that would suggest to me that Sunstein should have included in his analysis any concurrences that Alito wrote to see if the "view" he took to arrive at the same "conclusion" as the majority was more conservative than the majority.
It's not like a judge sits around on his keister waiting for his colleagues to write their opinion so he can know whether or not to join their view club. The way Cass phrases it sure gives that impression, though.
"Judges' conclusions upon analyzing legal issues aren't 'views,' and a disagreement among a panel of three judges isn't properly characterized as a 'rejection' aimed at colleagues. They simply reached different conclusions and are saying as much."
---
I think that last sentence is telling. Those different conclusions can have enormous impact on how our society works. Maybe the process of reaching the decision is a simple one, but what of the real-life consequences of such a conservative bent on people's lives?
Also, Frank Borger: It's spelled Daley. And Troy, no ad hominem attacks here please. She's trying to keep it civil to keep a balance of views as much as possible.
For all of the Althouse gang who have a background in statistics, is Prof. Cass's analysis as presented statistically significant?
In my opinion, a dissent qualifies as a rejection of the conclusions reached by the judge's colleagues. Either the dissent rejects the factual premise upon which the majority based its opinion, or it rejects that application of the law to undisputed facts - in either case it amounts to a rejection of a conclusion.
Give Prof. Sunstein another 24 hours and he will have statistical table of all of Alito's opinions with factors outlined to determine whether his conclusions were to the left or right of his colleagues. I think he should be cut some slack; however, the more interesting study would be those dissents that ultimately became the law or were outright rejected by the Supreme Court or the Congress (if a statutory interpretation issue).
Insert "she" for "he" in my prior post.
Hi Ann, this is not directly related(?) to this post. I am attaching a comment to your kind response on Richrd's Blog as to my dismay over the removal of the judge in the DeLay case. I posted the same on Richards Blog in appreciation of Jeff's comment as well.
Jeff, and Ann: Thanks for the response to my curiosity. I offer the following to your comments Ann.
“Appearance of unfairness” aside (if only for the briefest of moments here) I am bewildered and perplexed by your statement “Liberals are traditionally very respectful of the rights of those accused of crimes.” Now either I have not understood the thrust of your complete rationale regarding my question about DeLay or I am feeling the pangs of the type of semantical acrobatics I normally associate with the intentional ambiguity that the present presidential administration has structured much of its process on. Have I naively believed that everybody respected the rights of those accused of crimes? Your comment, for me, begs the question of “Appearance” of unfairness.
I guess I am going to need a little more clarification on the matter. So far only two things have given me an opening as to how I think I understand what is going on. First, Jeff’s paraphrasing of Orwell that “while all judges are impartial, some are more impartial than others,” and secondly; a response to a very negative criticism to the recipient of this years Booker Prize in Literature, author John Baneville and his novel “The Sea” in an article in today’s Arts section of the New York Times.
The Times, filtering its criticism through a “standard” of the use of language, heavily criticized Baneville’s books for their opaqueness and density to which he asserted some puzzlement. Commenting on his use of language and his ethnic background as an Irishman he said: “I’m constantly being accused of being elitist…But I write quite easy, approachable books.” Followed by “English writers for the most part try to follow Orwell’s dictum that prose should be a pane of clear glass through which you look. (Italics mine). “But Irish writers think of prose style as a distorting lens. We love that ambiguity; we love that a word can have three or four meanings at the same time.” We’re a language based society. You can get away with practically anything in this country if you give a good account of it.” To which quickly comes to mind a line often used in the Irish neighborhood I grew up in, “ Hey we’re all Irish on St. Patty’s Day.” But…I thought that only came around once a year! I’m thinking…not!
Perhaps it is all substance versus style. Whatever the case, with all due respect, I’m not swayed by your perception or rationale Ann. An “appearance” of anything leaves a little too much room for the kind of “language” that just as easily produces only more “appearances.” And since, if “truth” is what we are after in De Lay’s instance, then….well you tell me.
Here, Ann -- the sledgehammer you left at my place.
Lhombre, your point about clarity is well taken.
It is useful as presented. As is Ann's conclusion.
Sunstein NPR interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4984495
I would also be curious if these "more conservative" dissents corrolate to a higher or lower rate of reversal. Are his "more conservative" dissents more predictive of the current Supreme Court's rulings?
"Somewhere between 13 and 20 are best treated as neutral, that is, no ideological valence at all. Of those with an ideological valence, somewhere between 100% and 85% are to the majority's right."
Somewhere between 13 and 20 out of 41 are neutral? So somewhere between 21 and 27 are not neutral. Of the remainder, somewhere between 100% and 85% are to the majority's right? Big, impressive percentages! But in actual numbers, that means that somewhere between about 18 and 27 of Alito's dissents are to the right. Persistent conservative shenanigans - two conservative dissents per year! Holy cow, Cass - a Republican President nominated a jurist who you think has reached conservative results in two cases per year on average? Shocking stuff!
vnjagvet, I can tell you immediately that the conclusions, as statistics, have essentially no value, because of selection effect. First of all, Sunstein selects 41 dissents --- but ignores any concurrances, or any times when Alito simply joins the majority opinion.
By selecting only dissents, Sunstein ensures that his sample will be heavily skewed, and not a valid comparison with the Court as a whole.
I don't have the number at hand, but the total number of opinions I've heard is in the neighborhood of 300. So, assuming for arguments' sake that 300 is precise, Alito has dissented 41 times in 300. Thus, Alito has concurred roughly 87 percent of the time, and dissented roughly 13 percent of the time. According to Sunstein, between 13 and 20 of these dissents had some "idiological valence", but he doesn't compare how many of his concurrences had an "ideological valence."
So first, Sunstein selects only dissents, then applies some unspecified rule to identify the ones with an idiological content in his opinion. This selection gives use between 13 and 20 cases in which Sunstein feels there is some ideological difference between Alito and his collegues on the Court.
Again assuming the 300 figure, that means that Alito has differed from his collegues in ways that Sunstein chooses as "ideological" (300-41)+(13..20) times. That is, Alito agreed with his collegues 259 times, and disagreed with them in cases with "ideological valence" at most 20 times --- approximately 7 percent as many cases as he agreed with them.
It would appear that a realistic, and numerate, assessment of these figures suggests that Alito is 7 percent more conservative that his Court over all.
Re: "a realistic, and numerate, assessment of these figures suggests that Alito is 7 percent more conservative that his Court over all."
Really? The I want a do-over. Again.
Geez. What's Alito got against Scalia, anyway?
Sorry, a correction: that should be, as Simon notes (I just can't bring myself to say "as Simon says") between 21 and 27 that are both "ideologically valenced" and "more conservative". making Alito between 8 and 10 percent more conservative than the court as a whole.
Isn't it funny how there is now bleating from liberal law professors who said not a word when Miers was nominated? Where was athe two hundred signatory letter opposing the least qualified nominee in decades? The liberal op/eds screaming that this was the end of Roe? Where was the sort of fracas generated over Roberts and that will be generated over Alito?
If we really want to beat this to death, we could note that either not a single one of those 259 concurrences had an "ideological valuence" --- which means that Sunstein is comparing all 20-odd cases that had an ideological content at all, which suggests that the impact of ideology is actually quite small.
Or, more likely, that roughly half of those cases on which Alito concurred had an "ideological valence", which would suggest that Alito agreed with the ideological position of the rest of the Court about 4 times in 5.
Which means Alito probably should be counted as a liberal, right?
Careful, Seneca, the right might lose heart in this and criticize the President for nominating a "mushy" conservative. Another Souter?
I think the good professor's methodology is suspect, but let's grant his conclusion, and let's grant that conservative means what ever he thinks it does which I surmise is not good.
Now let's also grant what is widely suspected--that Judge Alito is an originalist, and devoted to the law as written.
It follows, then, that the laws under Alito's review were conservative, and that Alito's political temperament remains irrelevant.
Case listing
A) I do hope that we get more links to the original information... It would be nice to develop a page that had the ~300 cases, some notation of
0) Year of decision (and an ID) e.g. 1995-aa or whatever is "reasonable"
1) Position of Alito, e.g. Unanimous, Majority, Minority, Single opponent.
2) His decision upheld or overturned.
3) A short summary of his "position", e.g. For spousal notification,
4) A link to the details of the case.
That way we could do our own analysis further, and use this page as a basis of common discussion...
B) I think that the question of how close to politically centrist (relative to his other judges) is the probability that he would disagree to the level he does if his decisions were based on a coin toss. an I would consider only those that there was some disagreement, on the assumption that a unanimous decision is not indicative.
Did Professor S include a list of the 41 cases, along with a breakdown on how he saw each case?
It would be interesting to see what Cass calls a "conservative" decision, and how that differs from "followed the law and precedents, rather than Cass'es biases".
DR: Sunstein is a very prominent legal scholar. It's quite fitting that he get the very best invitations to do shows like this. And he is cranking through the cases producing information that sounds useful. I have a problem with the material myself, but respect his attempt to go through the evidence. I'd like to redo it myself if I had time. But I'm not as fired up as most people are about Alito. I'm more interested in keeping track of how people try to take him down than in generating statistics in his favor. Let a hot partisan or someone on the payroll do that.
If the appeals court in question is, in general, liberal -- and it is-- then isn't "Alito disagrees in a conservative direction" entirely consistent with the idea that he is a moderate with solidly mainstream legal views?
Even if you accepted Sunstein's data at face value, it still doesn't demostrate that Alito is right-wing -- only that he is more right-wing than a left-wing court.
A couple of things here. First, as far as whether it's worth criticizing Sunstein's methodology, my own opinion is that he's using numbers as Big Scary Things That Prove Something. Since he's doing so in a fashion that's either consciously misleading or simply innumerate, that's sufficient to deserve a little mild obloquy.
Second, I agree that the question of statistical significance isn't all that interesting, but without the statistical content, the whole argument comes down to "Cass Sunstein, a noted liberal legal scholar, thinks Judge Alito, nominated by President Bush, to be too conservative."
To which the only reasonable response is "well duh!"
As to Ann's point, the real question is whther we could have predicted the outcome of Sunstein's "study" before seeing his results. I personally think we could have; he's advocating a position, not making an objective study. So my contention would be that he's actually contributed nothing to the discussion, because there's no new information there. (There's no information content if there's no suprise.) Or, alternatively, considering his argument in a numerate fashion, the surprise, and the additional information content, has to be that Alito differed so rarely from the Court, and is therefore perhaps less conservative.
Does Sunstein distinguish between legal reasoning and result?
Most of the discussion of judicial opinions in the media focuses only on the results not the legal reasoning and principles.
Also, what does any of this tell us about Alito's likely choice when he no longer has the restraints he had in the Circuit Court?
The other question is how often did he dissent compared to not dissenting. If he generally dissented in a conservative direction but also didn't dissent all that often, then he would be somewhat more conservative than the Third Circuit, but he wouldn't be "out of the mainstream" either. It shouldn't be a shock that the President is going to nominate someone who is more conservative than the perfect middle-- this sort of study doesn't tell people how conservative he is, either.
Where is that "outside the mainstream" rule in the Constitution?
Same place, I suppose, where it says the nominee has to be "one of the leading lights in American jurisprudence" and "must think deeply and lucidly about legal issues?"
I can't recall which lawyer-commentator described Alito's opinions as pretty libertarian. The analyst under discussion here uses conservative without separating opinions into social vs. economic conservatism. Libertarian vs. statist would be a more heuristic classification for future prospects.
So rather than rehashing all this boring 'law' stuff, the Senators should just demand each nominee to take all those internet based quizzes (you know, which Simspon's character are you?, which animal are you?, which Greek god are you?, which shade of purple are you?, and the like - and one of those might be made up) and base their votes on the results (no Chief Wiggums on the Supreme Court, I'd much prefer an Apu, or even a Bart).
(I'm resisting the use of an emoticon to convey the mirthful tone intended for this post, I'm hoping that is self-evident, yet unfortunately I couldn't resist redundant parenthetical statements, oh well)
Oh and as far as Cass Sunstein churning out all that analysis so quickly.
I picture a Dickensian style factory full of law students slaving over the law books Bob Cratchet style with Prof. Sunstein hovering over them demanding faster results while wearing a top hat and waist-coat (and frequently peering at his pocket-watch)
If you want to match the alacrity of the big names you need to abuse your students and privileges the way they have often been caught doing
(I'm thinking the usual unattributed researcher, or accidental purgery scandals that pop up now and then with the frequently published professors, and no I'm not accusing Prof. Sunstein of anything, I was thinking along the lines of all the biographical historians caught with their pants down)
Sorry, a correction: that should be, as Simon notes (I just can't bring myself to say "as Simon says") between 21 and 27 that are both "ideologically valenced" and "more conservative". making Alito between 8 and 10 percent more conservative than the court as a whole.
فوائد الزنجبيل
فوائد الرمان
Post a Comment