-
1
-
-
26844457408
-
Signatures of Ideology: The Case of the Supreme Court's Criminal Docket, 104
-
See
-
See Ward Farnsworth, Signatures of Ideology: The Case of the Supreme Court's Criminal Docket, 104 MICH. L. REV. 67, 88-96, 99-100 (2005).
-
(2005)
MICH. L. REV
, vol.67
, Issue.88-96
, pp. 99-100
-
-
Farnsworth, W.1
-
2
-
-
68249147281
-
-
See id. at 71
-
See id. at 71.
-
-
-
-
3
-
-
68249150429
-
-
See id. at 69-73.
-
See id. at 69-73.
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
68249150430
-
-
See id
-
See id.
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
37749052519
-
The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift, 101
-
See
-
See Ward Farnsworth, The Use and Limits of Martin-Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 1891, 1892-96 (2007).
-
(2007)
NW. U. L. REV. 1891
, pp. 1892-1896
-
-
Farnsworth, W.1
-
6
-
-
84973969541
-
Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 83 AM. POL
-
See
-
See Jeffrey A. Segal & Albert D. Cover, Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, 83 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 557, 559-61 (1989).
-
(1989)
SCI. REV
, vol.557
, pp. 559-561
-
-
Segal, J.A.1
Cover, A.D.2
-
7
-
-
68249142645
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 68-73
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 68-73.
-
-
-
-
8
-
-
68249151885
-
-
The data for this study-the data used to create the graphs and to make the other numerical findings mentioned later-were derived from the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database at Michigan State University, which was created by Howard Spaeth. The basic method was to seek out all cases in the career of each Justice (through the end of October Term 2007) that involved criminal law in any form. The results from the Spaeth database were then checked against various datasets compiled by hand to help guard against omissions that might otherwise result. For an expanded discussion, see Farnsworth, supra note 1; at 68 n.7.
-
The data for this study-the data used to create the graphs and to make the other numerical findings mentioned later-were derived from the United States Supreme Court Judicial Database at Michigan State University, which was created by Howard Spaeth. The basic method was to seek out all cases in the career of each Justice (through the end of October Term 2007) that involved criminal law in any form. The results from the Spaeth database were then checked against various datasets compiled by hand to help guard against omissions that might otherwise result. For an expanded discussion, see Farnsworth, supra note 1; at 68 n.7.
-
-
-
-
9
-
-
68249136516
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 91-96
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 91-96.
-
-
-
-
10
-
-
68249141112
-
-
Rehnquist joined the Court as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972, became Chief Justice on September 26, 1986, and died on September 3, 2005. Douglas W. Kmiec, Overview of the Term: The Rule of Law & Roberts's Revolution of Restraint, 34 PEPP. L. REV. 495, 509 n.90 (2007).
-
Rehnquist joined the Court as an Associate Justice on January 7, 1972, became Chief Justice on September 26, 1986, and died on September 3, 2005. Douglas W. Kmiec, Overview of the Term: The Rule of Law & Roberts's Revolution of Restraint, 34 PEPP. L. REV. 495, 509 n.90 (2007).
-
-
-
-
11
-
-
68249138041
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69.
-
-
-
-
12
-
-
68249150427
-
-
The process of generating and searching data for this purpose leaves room for an individual case to be missed if its coding in the Spaeth database is unexpected or idiosyncratic in some way. If any reader knows of a constitutional case in which Justice Rehnquist did dissent for a defendant, kindly forward it to the author's attention
-
The process of generating and searching data for this purpose leaves room for an individual case to be missed if its coding in the Spaeth database is unexpected or idiosyncratic in some way. If any reader knows of a constitutional case in which Justice Rehnquist did dissent for a defendant, kindly forward it to the author's attention.
-
-
-
-
13
-
-
33644697469
-
The Marshall Court and the Originalisťs Dilemma, 90
-
describing Chief Justice Rehnquist as among the Court's most ardent proponents of originalism as a methodology of constitutional interpretation, See
-
See Peter J. Smith, The Marshall Court and the Originalisťs Dilemma, 90 MINN. L. REV. 612, 669 (2006) (describing Chief Justice Rehnquist as among the Court's "most ardent proponents of originalism as a methodology of constitutional interpretation").
-
(2006)
MINN. L. REV
, vol.612
, pp. 669
-
-
Smith, P.J.1
-
14
-
-
68249133462
-
-
See, e.g., Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 633-35 (2005) (joining a majority opinion holding that the use of visible restraints before a jury violates due process); Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 48 (2004) (per curiam) (agreeing with the majority opinion that a nullification instruction failed to allow the jury to fully consider mitigating evidence); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534-38 (2003) (agreeing that counsel's failure to investigate mitigating evidence beyond a presentence report violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel).
-
See, e.g., Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 633-35 (2005) (joining a majority opinion holding that the use of visible restraints before a jury violates due process); Smith v. Texas, 543 U.S. 37, 48 (2004) (per curiam) (agreeing with the majority opinion that a nullification instruction failed to allow the jury to fully consider mitigating evidence); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 534-38 (2003) (agreeing that counsel's failure to investigate mitigating evidence beyond a presentence report violated the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel).
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
68249150428
-
-
See Earl M. Maltz, Introduction to REHNQUIST JUSTICE: UNDERSTANDING THE COURT DYNAMIC 1, 5 (Earl M. Maltz ed., 2003) (defining originalism as a theory of constitutional interpretation whereby the Constitution's meaning is fixed by the original understanding of its language).
-
See Earl M. Maltz, Introduction to REHNQUIST JUSTICE: UNDERSTANDING THE COURT DYNAMIC 1, 5 (Earl M. Maltz ed., 2003) (defining "originalism" as a theory of constitutional interpretation whereby the Constitution's meaning is fixed by the "original understanding" of its language).
-
-
-
-
16
-
-
84869567497
-
-
See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 245-49 (2001, Stevens, J, dissenting, Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200-05 (1998, Scalia, J, dissenting, Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139-50 (1998, Ginsburg, J, dissenting, Rogers v. United States, 522 U.S. 252, 260-61 (1998, Kennedy, J, dissenting, United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 680-701 (1997, Thomas, J, concurring in part, dissenting in part, Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 278-97 (1992, Thomas, J, dissenting, United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 75-84 (1984, Rehnquist, J, dissenting, Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482, 501-12 1984, O'Connor, J, dissenting, Justice Rehnquisťs dissents are not always his own dissenting opinions, but include those authored by other Justices. I use this terminology throughout the Article
-
See Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 245-49 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200-05 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139-50 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); Rogers v. United States, 522 U.S. 252, 260-61 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 680-701 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255, 278-97 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting); United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 75-84 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Dixson v. United States, 465 U.S. 482, 501-12 (1984) (O'Connor, J., dissenting). Justice Rehnquisťs "dissents" are not always his own dissenting opinions, but include those authored by other Justices. I use this terminology throughout the Article.
-
-
-
-
17
-
-
68249159311
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 72-73, 97-99
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 72-73, 97-99.
-
-
-
-
18
-
-
68249133463
-
-
Cf. id. at 97 (The best explanation probably is that substantive cases, unlike almost all the others, don't involve an underlying trade-off between accuracy and its costs.).
-
Cf. id. at 97 ("The best explanation probably is that substantive cases, unlike almost all the others, don't involve an underlying trade-off between accuracy and its costs.").
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
68249144101
-
-
S
-
See 445 U.S. 360, 371, 374 (1980).
-
(1980)
See
, vol.445
, Issue.U
-
-
-
20
-
-
68249157831
-
-
Id. at 374
-
Id. at 374.
-
-
-
-
21
-
-
84869553505
-
-
Evans, 504 U.S. at 278-97 (Thomas, J., dissenting); Dixson, 465 U.S. at 501-12 (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Gilłock, 445 U.S. at 374 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
-
Evans, 504 U.S. at 278-97 (Thomas, J., dissenting); Dixson, 465 U.S. at 501-12 (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Gilłock, 445 U.S. at 374 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
22
-
-
68249154588
-
-
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 680-701 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 680-701 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
-
-
-
23
-
-
68249147277
-
-
United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 75-84 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
-
United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 75-84 (1984) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
24
-
-
68249160535
-
-
Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 228-32 (1976) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
-
Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212, 228-32 (1976) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
25
-
-
68249147276
-
-
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139-50 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
-
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139-50 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
26
-
-
68249147275
-
-
Rogers v. United States, 522 U.S. 252, 260-61 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
Rogers v. United States, 522 U.S. 252, 260-61 (1998) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
27
-
-
68249156338
-
-
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200-05 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 200-05 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
28
-
-
68249151884
-
-
Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 245-49 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 245-49 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
29
-
-
68249142640
-
-
United States v. Pa. Indus. Chem. Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 675 (1973) (Burger, C.J., dissenting).
-
United States v. Pa. Indus. Chem. Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 675 (1973) (Burger, C.J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
68249148901
-
-
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 209-10 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (tax evasion); Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 292-306 (1982) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (check kiting scheme); Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 245-52 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (securities fraud).
-
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 209-10 (1991) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (tax evasion); Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 292-306 (1982) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (check kiting scheme); Chiarella v. United States, 445 U.S. 222, 245-52 (1980) (Blackmun, J., dissenting) (securities fraud).
-
-
-
-
31
-
-
68249145802
-
-
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 698-710 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 212 (1978) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
-
Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676, 698-710 (1990) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 212 (1978) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
68249138036
-
-
Guam v. Olsen, 431 U.S. 195, 204-08 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
-
Guam v. Olsen, 431 U.S. 195, 204-08 (1977) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
33
-
-
68249136511
-
-
381 U.S. 532, 601-16 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
-
381 U.S. 532, 601-16 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
34
-
-
68249134962
-
-
Id. at 614
-
Id. at 614.
-
-
-
-
35
-
-
68249136515
-
-
Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 292-306 (1982) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 291-93 (1978) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (prosecution under Clean Air Act); United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 408-17 (1974) (White, J., dissenting) (credit card fraud scheme); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 186-89 (1966) (Warren, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (prosecution of politician for conspiracy).
-
Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 292-306 (1982) (Marshall, J., dissenting); Adamo Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, 291-93 (1978) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (prosecution under Clean Air Act); United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 408-17 (1974) (White, J., dissenting) (credit card fraud scheme); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 186-89 (1966) (Warren, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (prosecution of politician for conspiracy).
-
-
-
-
36
-
-
68249134960
-
-
For discussion of Stevens's ideology and its development over time, see Ward Farnsworth, Realism, Pragmatism, and John Paul Stevens, in REHN-QUIST JUSTICE: UNDERSTANDING THE COURT DYNAMIC, supra note 15, at 157.
-
For discussion of Stevens's ideology and its development over time, see Ward Farnsworth, Realism, Pragmatism, and John Paul Stevens, in REHN-QUIST JUSTICE: UNDERSTANDING THE COURT DYNAMIC, supra note 15, at 157.
-
-
-
-
37
-
-
68249147278
-
-
514 U.S. 549, 615-44 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
514 U.S. 549, 615-44 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
38
-
-
84888491658
-
-
§ 922q, 2006
-
18 U.S.C. § 922(q) (2006).
-
18 U.S.C
-
-
-
39
-
-
68249139629
-
-
See United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 319-24 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 436-37 (1989) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
See United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 319-24 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 436-37 (1989) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
84869553488
-
-
See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 280-90 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (prosecution of a state politician under the Hobbs Act); United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 474-77 (1978) (Stevens, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (antitrust prosecution); United States v. LaSalle Naťl Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 319-21 (1978) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (prosecution of a bank for tax offenses).
-
See, e.g., McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257, 280-90 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (prosecution of a state politician under the Hobbs Act); United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 474-77 (1978) (Stevens, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (antitrust prosecution); United States v. LaSalle Naťl Bank, 437 U.S. 298, 319-21 (1978) (Stewart, J., dissenting) (prosecution of a bank for tax offenses).
-
-
-
-
41
-
-
68249161765
-
-
496 U.S. 582, 606-08 (1990) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
496 U.S. 582, 606-08 (1990) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
-
-
-
42
-
-
68249154589
-
-
533 U.S. 27, 41-51 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
533 U.S. 27, 41-51 (2001) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
43
-
-
68249153118
-
-
For other, earlier examples, see Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 444-53 (1981) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (advocating for a broader automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment than the one adopted by the majority) and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 620-36 (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (arguing that using silence after Miranda warnings against defendants should be allowed).
-
For other, earlier examples, see Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 444-53 (1981) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (advocating for a broader "automobile exception" to the Fourth Amendment than the one adopted by the majority) and Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 620-36 (1976) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (arguing that using silence after Miranda warnings against defendants should be allowed).
-
-
-
-
44
-
-
68249142644
-
-
U.S. 405
-
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 405-10 (2005).
-
(2005)
Caballes
, vol.543
, pp. 405-410
-
-
Illinois, V.1
-
45
-
-
68249145804
-
-
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 692-706 (1981).
-
Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 692-706 (1981).
-
-
-
-
46
-
-
68249145803
-
-
U.S. 35
-
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 35-45 (1988).
-
(1988)
Greenwood
, vol.486
, pp. 35-45
-
-
California, V.1
-
47
-
-
68249144098
-
-
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 817-40 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796, 817-40 (1984) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
48
-
-
68249144102
-
-
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 115-24 (1977) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 115-24 (1977) (Stevens, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
68249161766
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 36, at 167
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 36, at 167.
-
-
-
-
50
-
-
68249141110
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69.
-
-
-
-
51
-
-
68249138035
-
-
This is true even in his dissents on substantive matters. In Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 12-22 (1999, for example, the defendant had put a gun in the face of a driver and told him to get out of the car so he could steal it. Holloway hadn't wanted to shoot the driver and didn't, but would have done so if the driver had given him a 'hard time. The question was whether, on these facts, Holloway had an intent to cause death or great bodily harm. The majority said that he did; Scalia dissented, saying the statute was ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be resolved in Holloway's favor. Holloway was far from being a white-collar defendant
-
This is true even in his dissents on substantive matters. In Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 12-22 (1999), for example, the defendant had put a gun in the face of a driver and told him to get out of the car so he could steal it. Holloway hadn't wanted to shoot the driver (and didn't), but would have done so if the driver had given him a 'hard time." The question was whether, on these facts, Holloway had an "intent to cause death or great bodily harm." The majority said that he did; Scalia dissented, saying the statute was ambiguous and that the ambiguity should be resolved in Holloway's favor. Holloway was far from being a white-collar defendant.
-
-
-
-
52
-
-
68249151883
-
-
See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 212-19 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (arguing that a complaint about the untimeliness of a habeas corpus petition should be considered waived if not pressed by the state); Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 312-19 (2005) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (arguing that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not require due diligence in seeking vacatur of a state conviction); United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 282-85 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 952-56 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
See Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 212-19 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (arguing that a complaint about the untimeliness of a habeas corpus petition should be considered waived if not pressed by the state); Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 312-19 (2005) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (arguing that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act does not require due diligence in seeking vacatur of a state conviction); United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 282-85 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 952-56 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
53
-
-
68249133461
-
-
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 59-71 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 59-71 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
68249154590
-
-
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 119-30 (1988) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 119-30 (1988) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
55
-
-
68249151887
-
-
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2389-94 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 860-70 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 2389-94 (2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 860-70 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
56
-
-
68249150425
-
-
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 467-81 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 467-81 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
57
-
-
68249133460
-
-
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 226-31 (2004) (Souter, J., dissenting); Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 388-96 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 226-31 (2004) (Souter, J., dissenting); Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. 376, 388-96 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
68249136512
-
-
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 30-40 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 248-71 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 30-40 (1999) (Scalia, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 248-71 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
68249136513
-
-
530 U.S. 466, 468 (2000).
-
530 U.S. 466, 468 (2000).
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
68249144099
-
-
500 U.S. 44, 47 (1991).
-
500 U.S. 44, 47 (1991).
-
-
-
-
61
-
-
68249134961
-
-
Id. at 59-71 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Id. at 59-71 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
62
-
-
68249151888
-
-
497 U.S. 836, 843 (1990).
-
497 U.S. 836, 843 (1990).
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
68249161767
-
-
Id. at 860-70 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Id. at 860-70 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
64
-
-
68249153121
-
-
491 U.S. 376, 388-96 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
491 U.S. 376, 388-96 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
65
-
-
68249138037
-
-
532 U.S. 451, 467-81 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
532 U.S. 451, 467-81 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
66
-
-
68249142643
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
67
-
-
68249145805
-
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69
-
See Farnsworth, supra note 1, at 69.
-
-
-
-
68
-
-
68249144100
-
-
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 603-14 (1995) (Souter, J., dissenting).
-
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 603-14 (1995) (Souter, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
69
-
-
68249154592
-
-
518 U.S. 81, 114-18 (1996) (Souter, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
518 U.S. 81, 114-18 (1996) (Souter, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
-
-
-
71
-
-
84869553473
-
-
Id. at 116 (Souter, J., dissenting) (quoting U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 5H1.4 (1995)).
-
Id. at 116 (Souter, J., dissenting) (quoting U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 5H1.4 (1995)).
-
-
-
-
72
-
-
68249147279
-
-
Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581, 1592-97 (2008) (Alito, J., dissenting) (arguing that driving under the influence of alcohol counts as a serious crime); Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 718-24 (1995) (Rehn-quist, C.J., dissenting) (arguing that the petitioner's conviction under the Federal False Claims Act should have been upheld).
-
Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 1581, 1592-97 (2008) (Alito, J., dissenting) (arguing that driving under the influence of alcohol counts as a "serious" crime); Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 718-24 (1995) (Rehn-quist, C.J., dissenting) (arguing that the petitioner's conviction under the Federal False Claims Act should have been upheld).
-
-
-
-
73
-
-
68249139630
-
-
Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 238-48 (1992) (Souter, J., dissenting); Lankford v. Ohio, 500 U.S. 110, 128-35 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 302-06 (1991) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). I say more or less because Stringer could possibly be characterized as a nonconsti-tutional decision, depending on how one interprets Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
-
Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222, 238-48 (1992) (Souter, J., dissenting); Lankford v. Ohio, 500 U.S. 110, 128-35 (1991) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 302-06 (1991) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). I say "more or less" because Stringer could possibly be characterized as a nonconsti-tutional decision, depending on how one interprets Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989).
-
-
-
-
74
-
-
68249138040
-
-
Stringer, 503 U.S. at 224-25 (majority opinion).
-
Stringer, 503 U.S. at 224-25 (majority opinion).
-
-
-
-
75
-
-
68249153120
-
-
Teague, 489 U.S. at 288.
-
Teague, 489 U.S. at 288.
-
-
-
-
76
-
-
68249138038
-
-
Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 302-06 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
-
Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 302-06 (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
77
-
-
68249159310
-
-
Lankford, 500 U.S. at 128-35 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
Lankford, 500 U.S. at 128-35 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
78
-
-
37749013683
-
Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important, 101
-
See
-
See Lee Epstein et al., Ideological Drift Among Supreme Court Justices: Who, When, and How Important, 101 Nw. U. L. REV. 1483, 1504-10 (2007).
-
(2007)
Nw. U. L. REV
, vol.1483
, pp. 1504-1510
-
-
Epstein, L.1
-
79
-
-
41849104186
-
On the Perils of Drawing Inferences About Supreme Court Justices from Their First Few Years of Service, 91
-
See
-
See Lee Epstein et al., On the Perils of Drawing Inferences About Supreme Court Justices from Their First Few Years of Service, 91 JUDICATURE 168, 168-79 (2008).
-
(2008)
JUDICATURE
, vol.168
, pp. 168-179
-
-
Epstein, L.1
-
80
-
-
68249153119
-
-
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 295-311 (2007) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 328-47 (2004) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 555-66 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 254-74 (1999) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270, 295-311 (2007) (Kennedy, J., dissenting); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 328-47 (2004) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 555-66 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 254-74 (1999) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
81
-
-
68249150426
-
-
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 28-39 (2005) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 118-19 (1996) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 28-39 (2005) (O'Connor, J., dissenting); Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 118-19 (1996) (Breyer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
-
-
-
-
82
-
-
68249147280
-
-
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 475-80 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
-
Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462, 475-80 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
83
-
-
68249145806
-
-
128 S. Ct. 2020, 2035-45 (2008) (Alito, J., dissenting).
-
128 S. Ct. 2020, 2035-45 (2008) (Alito, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
84
-
-
68249161768
-
-
Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 83-89 (2003) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
-
Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69, 83-89 (2003) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
85
-
-
68249138039
-
-
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 169-76 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 169-76 (1995) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
86
-
-
68249160538
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
87
-
-
68249161769
-
-
128 S. Ct. 2678, 2695-709 (2008) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
128 S. Ct. 2678, 2695-709 (2008) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
-
88
-
-
68249156339
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
89
-
-
68249141111
-
-
529 U.S. 334, 339-43 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
529 U.S. 334, 339-43 (2000) (Breyer, J., dissenting).
-
-
-
|