Strong consensus on US Supreme Court spans a century
Edward D. Lee

TL;DR
This paper uses a pairwise maximum entropy model to analyze and simulate the voting behavior of the US Supreme Court over a century, revealing high consensus stability and complex dissent patterns.
Contribution
It introduces a minimal pairwise correlation model that accurately predicts Supreme Court voting, challenging the idea that high-order interactions are necessary.
Findings
Consensus decays very slowly over a century.
Dissenting blocs follow a heavy-tailed Zipf's law.
Minimal pairwise model outperforms more complex models.
Abstract
The US Supreme Court throughout the 20th century has been characterized as being divided between liberals and conservatives, suggesting that justices with similar ideologies would have voted similarly had they overlapped in tenure. What if they had? I build an empirical, quantitative model of this counterfactual hypothesis using pairwise maximum entropy. I infer how 36 justices from 1946-2016 would have all voted on a Super Supreme Court. The model is strikingly consistent with a standard voting model from political science despite using less parameters and fitting the observed statistics better. As with historical courts, the Super Court is dominated by consensus. The rate at which consensus decays as more justices are included is extremely slow, nearly 100 years, and indicates that the modern Supreme Court is an extremely stable institution. Beyond consensus, I discover a rich…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLaw, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Sports Analytics and Performance
