Some fascinating new evidence on US Supreme Court decision making and (perhaps) on Bush v. Gore from my colleagues Forrest Maltzman, Lee Sigelman and Paul Wahlbeck in the latest issue of PS (the complete paper is here). They’ve uncovered smoking-gun quality evidence that Justice Rehnquist has been running a betting pool on US presidential elections - there’s a copy of the bets (and results) for the 1992 election among Harry Blackmun’s papers (you can see an extract below). In 1992, six members of the Court anted up $1 each for each of the 50 states and for the District of Columbia. Thus, there was a pool of $6 for each state, which was divvied up evenly among those Justices who correctly predicted the winner for that state. As the Chief Justice described the results of the pool in his cover note:
The net result is that Sandra has won $18.30, Harry has won $1.70, John and I have lost $6.30, Tony has lost $2.30, and Clarence has lost $5.10.
Maltzman, Sigelman and Wahlbeck run a series of statistical tests on the Justice’s performance, finding that the justices’ exposure (or lack of same) to mainstream media and first-hand knowledge of the state in question have statistically significant effects. They demonstrate that the level of Supreme Court productivity sags during election years, suggesting that the Justices are “preoccupied with cramming for the office pool.” More pertinently, for recent political events, they suggest that this may have affected the Judges’ incentives in Bush v. Gore - to the extent that the judges had money at stake, they had, to put it mildly, an interest in swinging the result. As the authors remind us:
During an election night party in 2000, Justice O’Connor apparently became upset when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Vice President Gore, She exclaimed “This is terrible!” and then proceeded, “with an air of obvious disgust,” to walk off to get a plate of food (Thomas and Isikoff 2000). Speculation abounded at the time about why O’Connor was so distraught, but our revelation of the operation of a Supreme Court gambling ring opens up a new possibility: If, as she had done in 1992, O’Connor predicted that Florida would go Republican in 2000 (an outcome she subsequently helped to assure), then her outburst probably stemmed from dismay at the prospect of falling behind in the election pool.
Explains a lot, doesn’t it.
“The net result is that Sandra has won $18.30, Harry has won $1.70, John and I have lost $6.30, Tony has lost $2.30, and Clarence has lost $5.10.”
That’s fantastic! O’Connor kicked everyone’s ass, and Rhenquist, Stevens and of course Thomas are totally out of it.
Perhaps Rhenquist and Thomas have graduated to TradeSports. No wonder the Bush EC prices have been so whacked.
This is a wonderful find. All hail the archive.
Great satire. Funny stuff ;)
This has got to be some sort of sick joke. Pete Rose, eat your heart out.
The commentary is tongue-in-cheek, obviously, but the evidence of the Supreme Court betting pool is 100% legit.
Forgive me for stating the excessively obvious (and for being hoaxed if I am being) … but it occurs to me that (1) those are awfully small sums of money, (2) I’d kinda-sorta expect the SCOTUS members to bet larger sums if they were going to play for money at all, (3) I’d also expect them to abbreviate their bets both for convenience and so as to be less embarrassing if the thing got discovered, and (4) if there’s any truth mixed in with the satire of the commentary, then larger sums provide better explanations than smaller ones. So … perhaps those numbers really represent thousands of dollars?
I’d kinda-sorta expect the SCOTUS members to bet larger sums if they were going to play for money at all
Why would you expect this? Seems like a weird expectation. Playing for money doesn’t have to be serious; injecting just a little bit of money makes it exciting, and thus fun, without the downer of losing your shirt. Since lawyers are usually risk-averse people, I would fully expect them to bet tiny amounts (if at all).
I personally enjoyed footnote #5. Actually I don’t know how I missed this one in my current PS (I just stuck it up on the shelf today after skimming it Wednesday when I got it).
I hope the commentary is tongue-in-cheek. Though I agree that Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, I don’t think it had anything to do with a harmless betting pool among the judges. In fact, the existence of this betting pool was reported around the time the Blackmun papers were released. It seemed unremarkable then, and it seems so now. The Judges are serious people who would not let their vote be swayed by a betting pool. (Of course, there is a deeper question about what motivations the judges did have. Still, I think the judges, themselves, genuinely believed they were doing the best thing for the country.) If we stop believing that our political opponents are not, at least, decent people, then in Jon Stewart’s words, “We’re in bad shape fellas.” Now, if this post is meant to mock the kind of quick-trigger document-waiving that passes for debate in the news culture, then it’s dead on!
I hope the commentary is tongue-in-cheek. Though I agree that Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided, I don’t think it had anything to do with a harmless betting pool among the judges. In fact, the existence of this betting pool was reported around the time the Blackmun papers were released. It seemed unremarkable then, and it seems so now. The Judges are serious people who would not let their vote be swayed by a betting pool. (Of course, there is a deeper question about what motivations the judges did have. Still, I think the judges, themselves, genuinely believed they were doing the best thing for the country.) If we stop believing that our political opponents are not, at least, decent people, then in Jon Stewart’s words, “We’re in bad shape fellas.” Now, if this post is meant to mock the kind of quick-trigger document-waiving that passes for debate in the news culture, then it’s dead on!
n: Maybe I’m just psychologically distoibed; I don’t find that betting a small amount of money is any more exciting than betting no money (or matchsticks, or abstract points, or whatever), but I can see how putting some serious money on the line might add a certain buzz. Perhaps that’s unusual; if Rehnquist et al differ from me in this respect then my kinda-sorta-expectation would be wrong.
G—I personally would find small bets exciting because I just plain enjoy being right. For no reason whatsoever, I suspect that Supreme Court Justices share this trait with philosophers, so they would find small bets exciting too. (And I don’t make bets on the election, because I suspect I wouldn’t enjoy the outcome.)
I keep expecting a disclaimer to come along in each paragraph as I read through. But it never quite reaches Onion-like proportions. Is this really real? And if so, is Clarence Thomas really that bad?
Over at Crooked Timber, Henry links to a political science paper on a 1992 document discovered in the Blackm...
Read more at The Volokh Conspiracy
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review