Patterico's Pontifications

7/2/2005

L.A. Times Needs a New Fact-Checker for Those Editorials

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:27 pm

Today’s L.A. Times editorial on Justice O’Connor opens with this statement:

One fact sums up Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s pivotal role on the Supreme Court and the enormity of her resignation — she alone was in the majority of every one of the court’s 13 5-4 decisions this last term.

Wow. That’s really impressive. Except for one small problem . . . there were 24 5-4 decisions this Term, not 13 — and Justice O’Connor was in the minority in quite a few of those cases. Let’s take a few of the more prominent examples:

Justice O’Connor dissented from the decision in Granholm v. Heald, a 5-4 decision regarding interstate shipments of wine. The majority consisted of Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Justice O’Connor dissented from the decision in Kelo v. City of New London, a 5-4 decision relating to eminent domain. The majority consisted of Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Justice O’Connor dissented from the decision in Roper v. Simmons, a 5-4 decision striking down the death penalty for juveniles. The majority consisted of Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.

Justice O’Connor dissented from the decision in Medellín v. Dretke, a 5-4 decision that refused to consider a death row prisoner’s claim under the Vienna Convention. The opinion was a per curiam decision; Justice O’Connor’s dissent was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.

Justice O’Connor dissented from Part I of the decision in U.S. v. Booker, a 5-4 decision holding that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unconstitutional unless they are treated as merely advisory in nature. The majority in Part I of Booker consisted of Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg.

SCOTUSBlog has done the analysis of the Court’s 24 (not 13) 5-4 decisions this term, and concluded in this memorandum as follows:

In this Term’s 5-4 decisions, Justices Souter and Scalia were in the majority in 15 of 24 decisions. Justices O’Connor and Ginsburg were each in the majority 14 times, while Justices Kennedy and Breyer were in the majority 13 times. Justice Stevens was in the majority 12 times and Chief Justice Rehnquist 11 times.

This is quite a bit different from the pronouncement at the head of today’s editorial, no? I guess the obvious question is: do David Shaw’s “four experienced Times editors” review editorials too?

It will be interesting to see how they word this correction . . .

(Thanks to Xrlq for inspiring this post.)

UPDATE: In comments, Volokh Co-Conspirator Orin Kerr suggests that The Times may have accidentally used statistics from the 2002-2003 Term, rather than the 2004-2005 Term. Fair enough. [UPDATE to the UPDATE: Not so fast, Professor Kerr! Antimedia points out in the comments that Green Tree v. Bazzle was a 5-4 decision rendered during the October 2002 term (decided June 23, 2003) with O'Connor dissenting. So the L.A. Times can't use Professor Kerr's argument as an excuse. Nice catch, Antimedia!]

Nobody is suggesting that Justice O’Connor hasn’t been an important swing vote, but she wasn’t always a swing vote — and she was not the only one by a longshot. (Coincidentally enough, this is a point that Professor Kerr makes today — in the L.A. Times!)

UPDATE x2: Welcome to Instapundit and Mickey Kaus readers! Please take a second to bookmark/blogroll the main page. Bloglines subscribers can subscribe by clicking on this button (I recommend the first feed):

Subscribe with Bloglines

Also, you can listen to me on Pundit Review Radio tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern. Details here.

UPDATE x3: Prof. Kerr e-mails to clarify his comment:

As for the Green Tree case pointed out in your comments, which is a October Term 2002 case, I don’t know whether the LA Times was counting cases with no majority opinions. Also, I don’t know if they were right — I just assume that they meant the 2002 term as that term is the one that is generally understood to have that # of 5-4 cases.

The letter to Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold has been sent, so if that’s their explanation, we’ll know soon enough . . .

UPDATE x4: More thoughts on why this is important here.

UPDATE x5: A commenter points to an analysis that shows 17 rather than 24 5-4 decisions. It doesn’t make the L.A. Times any more correct, but it may be worth noting.

The Wrong Way to Correct Mistakes

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 8:35 pm

I wrote an entire op-ed on how the L.A. Times should correct important mistakes. Suffice it to say that this isn’t the right way. (Via Mickey.)

I Should Make This Clear

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:10 pm

I am predicting Garza.

But I am hoping for Luttig.

Bush: save Garza to replace Rehnquist. You want to make history? Forget Gonzales. Make Garza Chief Justice. Now that’s making history.

I Need the Angry Clam

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:05 pm

If this L.A. Times article is correct, the only mystery about Alberto Gonzales is whether Bush will nominate him now or for the second spot. Even solid conservatives seem resigned to this. For example, Paul at Power Line said yesterday:

If Bush fills two vacancies, I believe that one will go to a moderate (probably Alberto Gonzales) out of friendship and/or the desire to commit affirmative action. The key right now is to make sure that we get one conservative out of the Bush administration (even his father accomplished that).

No. The key is to get two conservatives on the Court. Not one. Two.

Any suggestion to the contrary makes me so Angry™ that I am tempted to break my self-imposed rule that I will not curse profusely on this site, in the fashion of the Angry Clam™. (The Clam is, of course, free to do so — and does.) The idea that even staunch conservatives like Power Line seem ready to accept a Souter-style “moderate” (read: liberal) for the second nomination has me about ready to tear my hair out.

For God’s sake, people — we won. We won the Presidential election. We won the Senate.

Are we ever going to capitalize on our victories? Ever??

Where is the Angry Clam™ when you need him?


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1782 secs.