{"id":53,"date":"2014-11-04T17:25:25","date_gmt":"2014-11-04T17:25:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/?p=53"},"modified":"2022-06-11T20:15:16","modified_gmt":"2022-06-11T20:15:16","slug":"tackling-the-immigration-problem-i-outcome-votes-direction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/2014\/11\/04\/tackling-the-immigration-problem-i-outcome-votes-direction\/","title":{"rendered":"Immigration Solution (Part I): Outcome Votes + Direction"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my last post<\/a>, I vowed to upgrade a map plotting immigration doctrine\u00a0to include pre-1946 vote counts and decision directions. The reason the map did not already include this information is that the Spaeth (Supreme Court Database) dataset does not cover cases decided before 1946<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The upgrade process involved examining each case previously plotted in green to figure out two things: (1) the number of votes for and against the majority outcome; and (2) the “direction” of the outcome (liberal or conservative). “Outcome” refers to judgment — who wins or loses. In the usual case, outcome votes will add up to 9. In cases where less than 9 justices actually cast votes, the opinion is plotted based on the number of dissents. (Thus, for example: a 8-0 would be plotted in the same position as a 9-0 and a 5-2 would be plotted in the same position as a 7-2.) Before I explain more, take a peek at\u00a0the upgraded map (click on it for a full-sized view):<\/p>\n

\"01_Immigration_edit\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Note that Spaeth’s\u00a0outcome measurement does not account for subtle hermeneutic distinctions that sometimes arise in fractured decisions. Outcome does not track\u00a0whether a justice joins part of an\u00a0opinions but not all<\/a>. Outcome tracks votes. In the outcome paradigm,\u00a0the votes of justices who concur “in judgment only”\u00a0count as part of the majority outcome.<\/p>\n

“Decision direction” is a similarly blunt measurement.\u00a0Under the Spaeth system, direction is either liberal or conservative<\/a>. While sometimes controversial, the direction code is best thought of as recording who won or lost at the Court. For this map, and following Spaeth for the post-1946 cases, I coded cases where the immigrant\/person challenging the government WON relief as “liberal.” On the flip side, when the immigrant LOST, I coded it as “conservative.” This was not always a cut-and-dry process.<\/p>\n

Consider 1922’s Ng Fung Ho <\/em>as just one example. This case involved four Chinese persons\u00a0challenging their deportations\u00a0via habeas<\/a>. Justice Brandeis wrote the unanimous opinion which ultimately allowed two of the individuals to challenge their detention, but denied the other two relief. I coded the opinion conservative because Brandeis offered a very strong view of sovereign power to exclude and was not at all sympathetic to the immigrants’ claims. But because relief was granted, I could have<\/em> coded the decision liberal.<\/p>\n

Such\u00a0difficult-to-make decisions abound.\u00a0The best way to avoid\u00a0them, in my opinion, is to track doctrinal “concepts” rather than “outcomes.” Yet\u00a0this is a tricky enterprise because it\u00a0requires a close reading of the cases. Concepts cannot be plotted simply by leveraging the Spaeth dataset. It is a much slower and intensive process — but one that results in\u00a0more subtle visualizations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yet the Spaeth-driven method is still very useful. Though generated quickly, this upgraded map is still quite revealing. For example, it clearly shows a long period of consensus followed by dissent. From 1913’s Bugajewtiz<\/em> to 1947’s Delgadillo<\/em>, the Court had nothing but unanimous decisions. Post WWII, we start to see divisions in the doctrine. Though “conservative” cases dominate, “liberal” ones sneak in there too. This is territory\u00a0worth exploring in more detail. And so I will in the next post!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In my last post, I vowed to upgrade a map plotting immigration doctrine\u00a0to include pre-1946 vote counts and decision directions. The reason the map did not already include this information is that the Spaeth (Supreme Court Database) dataset does not … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":400,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/400"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":888,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53\/revisions\/888"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}