So on the "Who is writing Brnovich" Kremlinology, SCOTUS tries to keep the opinion writing even over time, with each Justice getting an opinion every sitting (or so). Given that, we can start to determine who has which outstanding opinions (it's like an LSAT logic puzzle!) 1/
Brnovich concerns the standard for a Voting Rights Act claim, so it has the potential for a blockbuster. And there are three justices who haven't had an opinion that month: Breyer, Kavanaugh and Alito. 2/
Needless to say, those three are likely to produce very different opinions. Breyer would write an opinion that is narrow, perhaps decided on standing grounds, or very fact specific (sort of like what happened in Fulton, the Philly adoption agency case). 3/
But Breyer has authored six opinions this sitting, which is going to be the average for these justices. It's conceivable he got the opinion here, but not terribly likely. 4/
That leaves Kav and Alito. Alito has authored 4 opinions this term, Kavanaugh 5. Realistically it could be either of them. But there's a theory that Alito's lengthy dissent in Fulton was originally a majority opinion. If this is true, both would have had 5 opinions as of Feb.
Sorry four opinions. So a lot comes down to whether you buy this theory or not. Is it Kav or Alito? If Alito didn't originally have Fulton, he most likely has this case. If he did, I would guess this is Kav's. So maybe 10/45/45 on Breyer/Kav/Alito. One other thing though. 6/
The Chief loves to write on VRA/14th Amendment claims. He gets first pick of cases, so he's taken things like Shelby County, Parents Involved, etc. It's hard for me to imagine he'd pass on this one, especially if Fulton were a dud to begin with 7/
Maybe if it's a narrow ruling he'd give it to Kav, to allow him to write an opinion that's appealing to liberals, relatively speaking. But another option is that the Chief isn't in the majority and didn't assign, and that the five to his right are going Leeroy Jenkins. 8/
So I guess I'd be 10% Breyer on very narrow/standing grounds, 40% Kav writing a modestly conservative opinion, 25% Alito writing a modestly conservative 6-3 opinion, 25% Alito writing a strongly conservative 5-4 or 5-1-3 opinion. 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whoops, deleted an earlier tweet about Supreme Court bingo and Brnovich. Alito writing Collins in inconsequential b/c it is from December and Brnovich is February. 1/
Sorry about that. Derpity derpity derp. Kagan writing Lange doesn't really change things, as she and Breyer were basically a unit for the type of opinion being written. So the rough possibilities are basically: 2/
(a) Breyer writing a narrow VRA opinion, possibly based on standing; (b) Kavanaugh who could possibly be writing a broad opinion but probably not, or (c) Alito writing a Katie-bar-the-door opinion.
This has been floating around my FB and twitter TL. As with most revisionist histories, if you read it in conjunction with the dominant narrative you might start to get something approaching a good take. 1/
Like if your takeaway about Santa Anna is that he was an abolitionist, and not, say, (also) a war criminal and dictator who unilaterally revoked the Mexican constitution and imposed a new, centralized one, you're probably not getting the full picture of him. 2/
If you're examining the Texas revolution, but not taking account of the fact that a large portion of Mexico also tried to secede in response to SA's revocation of the constitution . . . ehhhhhh . . . 3/
The reaction to @ForecasterEnten's column on the midterms is absolutely insane. Like yeah I can tell a story on why Democrats gain House seats and certainly Senate seats, but there's approximately zero reason for that to be the *expectation* right now.
Years where I could tell a better story why the president's party gains seats in the midterm than the current one: 1945, when Truman had an 82% job approval and had just presided over victory in WWII.
1965, when LBJ had a 65% job approval in October and was presiding over an historic Congress and a massive economic expansion.
OK, dissertation-related question. I'm working with an OH precinct shapefile, and used poly2nb to build an adjacency matrix. I went back and plotted it by county and in some counties it works brilliantly and in others, well (click to see the adjacencies): 1/
As you can see when you click, there's a precinct in NW Ottawa County that has no detected adjacencies, despite there being several obvious ones, and the cluster in south-central Ottawa connects to itself, but nothing else. 2/
So, um, any idea what might be causing this? I can manually fill in the matrix for the handful of precincts in Ottawa County, but in a place like Mahoning that would be very time-intensive and I would prefer to avoid. 3/3
The x-axis is the two party vote in November for Ossoff, the right axis is the two party vote in January for Ossoff in counties where at least 85% of the vote is in. 2/
The diagonal line has a slop of 1 and an intercept of 0.009 -- basically is is the margin needed in each county for Ossoff to win. The dots are sized by population. 3/
We talk a lot about how America has fractured culturally over the past 40 years, and this is such an interesting illustration. I'm not particularly red culturally, don't watch a lot of network television, etc., and I've *heard* of one of these movies and four of these shows. 1/
In the 80s and even the 90s it would have been practically impossible for a President to offer up a list like this and have it be the case. The most-watched show in TV history is still the M.A.S.H. series finale (which was bad, but everyone watched it). 2/
This isn't 100% bad; from googling a lot of these shows relate stories that wouldn't have been told when you had three networks all fighting over the same basic demographic. 3/