Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 16--Full Disclosure in Graphs: My Hypothetical Voting Patterns)

This post continues and concludes my full disclosure cum self-therapy and self-awareness. I've collated the Justices' votes, added my own hypothetical ones, and depicted the resulting patterns graphically.

Without delay, here goes. Which Justices would I have voted with the most, and which the least? The graph:
GRAPH 1
Voting Agreement and Disagreement
(click to enlarge) 














Yes, I would have voted with Chief Justice Roberts the most! In the "Top Ten" highlight cases of the Court's last term, I would have voted with Roberts more than anyone else. Well, tied with Justice Kennedy. I'm not too surprised about Kennedy. But Roberts?

Kennedy the swing vote, OK. But Roberts, the Rehnquist-protege conservative? Well, I've double checked the numbers and they're accurate.

And I actually agreed with the Court itself in a full 7 out of 10 of the cases! What can I say. I'm surprised. (Disappointed?)

In any event,  here's the same data in a less cluttered graph:
GRAPH 2
Voting Agreement
(click to enlarge)














I apparently agreed with each of the remaining 7 Justices to nearly the same extent. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito and Sotomayor just a bit more than Stevens, Scalia and Thomas.

Now, let's reorganize the Justices on the graph into ideological camps.

Great Women, Great Chiefs

On Wednesday, February 16, 2011, the Albany Law Review will host it's annual Chief Judge Lawrence H. Cooke State Constitutional Commentary Symposium. This year's participants are three of the nation's most eminent jurists.

Chief Justice Margaret Marshall of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus from the Iowa Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Jean Toal of the South Carolina Supreme Court will share their insights as the presiding members of the highest court and the judicial branch of  their respective states.

The event begins at 2 p.m. at Albany Law School, in the Dean Alexander Moot Courtroom. A reception will follow.

Join the Law Review for this very special event.

Click here for more information.

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 15--Full Disclosure in Pics: How I Would Have Voted )

I've previously noted my agreement with Justice William O. Douglas's view that legal analysts and commentators ought to disclose their predilections. At least from time to time. In this way, the reader or listener has a better idea of the possible biases that might be influencing what is being presented. (See William O. Douglas, Law Reviews and Full Disclosure, 40 Wash. L. Rev. 227 [1965]. And see, e.g., a recent post on New York Court Watcher: Supreme Court: Highlights...(Disclosure--How I Would Have Voted in the Free Speech Values Cases), Oct. 29, 2010.)

Also, readers of this blog seem to respond to the "disclosure" posts more than any others--those and the post-season "Saratoga Highlights" posts. And, yes, like the "Saratoga Highlights," I have fun doing the "Disclosures." Self-therapy?

First we'll look pictorially at my hypothetical votes alongside the Justices' real ones in each of the cases. Later, we'll look graphically at my hypothetical record alongside the real ones for the Justices--restraint versus activism, and politically conservative versus politically liberal.

Supreme Court: Highlights...(Part 14--Restraint vs Activism?: GRAPHIC Recap of All)

As we did last post, here's the graph without delay. 
GRAPH 1
Restraint (deference) vs Activism (invalidate)
(click to enlarge)  
Which Justices practiced judicial restraint? That is, judicial "modesty and humility"--as Chief Justice Roberts said he would at his confirmation hearings.

You know, deference to the lawmakers. Respect for the choices of the Congress and the States. Reluctance to overrule their decisions. Affording considerable leeway to those more accountable, more democratic, more representative, closer-to-the-people arms of the government.

In short, invalidating a law enacted by Congress or the States only when that law is clearly unconstitutional. When there's no doubt about it. The law violates an unmistakable command of the Constitution.

So which Justices practiced the John Roberts "modesty and humility" of  judicial restraint? More precisely, how frequently did each Justice exercise judicial restraint? And how frequently the opposite--i.e., the apparently dreaded judicial activism? How frequently voting to overrule the people's representatives?