Justice blocks and predictability of US Supreme Court votes
AI-generated Key Points
- The study "Justice Blocks and Predictability of US Supreme Court Votes" explores the predictability of US Supreme Court justices' votes based on their colleagues' votes in the same case.
- Models and methods developed for analyzing complex social networks are used to find that these methods are more accurate at predicting justice's votes than forecasts made by legal experts or algorithms that consider the content of cases.
- High predictability is a quantitative proxy for stable justice (and case) blocks, which likely reflect stable a priori attitudes toward the law.
- U.S. Supreme Court justice votes are more predictable than expected from an ideal court composed of perfectly independent justices, with deviations from ideal behavior most apparent in divided 5-4 decisions where justice blocks appear to be most stable.
- Justice predictability decreased during the 50-year period between the Warren Court and Rehnquist Court eras, and aggregate court predictability has been significantly lower during Democratic presidencies.
- Methods developed for analyzing complex social networks can be used to quantitatively investigate historical questions related to political decision-making, shedding light on how legal decisions are made and evolving behaviors within the judiciary.
Authors: Roger Guimera, Marta Sales-Pardo
Abstract: Successful attempts to predict judges' votes shed light into how legal decisions are made and, ultimately, into the behavior and evolution of the judiciary. Here, we investigate to what extent it is possible to make predictions of a justice's vote based on the other justices' votes in the same case. For our predictions, we use models and methods that have been developed to uncover hidden associations between actors in complex social networks. We show that these methods are more accurate at predicting justice's votes than forecasts made by legal experts and by algorithms that take into consideration the content of the cases. We argue that, within our framework, high predictability is a quantitative proxy for stable justice (and case) blocks, which probably reflect stable a priori attitudes toward the law. We find that U. S. Supreme Court justice votes are more predictable than one would expect from an ideal court composed of perfectly independent justices. Deviations from ideal behavior are most apparent in divided 5-4 decisions, where justice blocks seem to be most stable. Moreover, we find evidence that justice predictability decreased during the 50-year period spanning from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court, and that aggregate court predictability has been significantly lower during Democratic presidencies. More broadly, our results show that it is possible to use methods developed for the analysis of complex social networks to quantitatively investigate historical questions related to political decision-making.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.