News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by panda-giddiness on Friday April 01, 2022 @03:05PM (#30882069)
Sure, most cases aren't polarizing, but that doesn't mean that the law is objective -- the other 30% of cases proves as much.

Personally, I'd be more interesting in knowing how many cases split 5/4 (or 6/3) the obvious way versus how many cases were unanimous or nearly so.

Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by dvt on Friday April 01, 2022 @03:22PM (#30882241)
9-0 is far more common than 5-4, this is pretty common knowledge for anyone that follows SCOTUS, but here's a source[1].

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...

Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by panda-giddiness on Friday April 01, 2022 @06:55PM (#30884140)
Sorry, I see now that my comment was unclear. I mean of the 5/4 splits, I'd be curious what proportion of cases split 5/4 in the expected manner (Democratic vs Republican appointees) versus other alignments (e.g., Sotomayor, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Ginsburg versus the rest).
Re:Justice Clarence Thomas uncovered a seven-year-old bug in... by dragonwriter on Saturday April 02, 2022 @11:28AM (#30888936)
What you'd actually expect with political parties that aren't particularly cohesive or consistent over time isn't partisan consistency but that judges would vote consistently with the position of their appointing President on issues politically salient at the time of their appointment and less predictably otherwise.

Which, it turns out, is what they tend to do.