Network Derived Domain Maps of
the United States Supreme Court:
50 years of Co-Voting Data and a Case
Study on Abortion
Peter A. Hook,
J.D., M.S.L.I.S.
Electronic Services Librarian, Indiana University
School of Law--Bloomington
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~pahook
May 22, 2007, NetSci 07
New York Hall of Science, Queens, NYC
SLIS
Harvard Law Review Supreme Court Statistics
July 2, 2005 New York Times
1
Ideological Landscape of the Justices (1994 – 2003)
Appointed by a Democrat
Appointed by a Republican
Voting frequencies represented as the edge weight between
nodes and presented visually as a graph. (Rendered with
Pajek using a stochastic, spring force algorithm.)
Voting Together > 50%
(Non-Unanimous Cases 1994 -2003 Supreme Court Terms)
Voting Together > 49%
(Non-Unanimous Cases 1994 -2003 Supreme Court Terms)
2
20
1994-2003 Non-Unanimous Cases (MDS using R)
ohn Paul Stevens
Clarence Thomas
0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
David Hacktt Souter
Anthony M. Kennedy
-10
William H. Rehnquist
Stephen G. Breyer
Sandra Day O'Connor
-20
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,2]
10
Antonin Scalia
-40
-20
0
20
40
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,1]
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
© 2007 Peter A. Hook – Spatial distribution based on the percentage of co-voting in Supreme
Court opinions. Source: Harvard Law Review (O Data). Rendered with Pajek. Blue border
color = appointed by a Democrat. Red border color = appointed by a Republican.
3
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages
(1956 – 2005 Terms)
# Cases
Together
Justice 1
Justice 2
%
O’Connor
Roberts
91
23
Warren
Marshall
88
178
Reed
Clark
85
40
Fortas
Marshall
85
132
Warren
Brennan
82
1406
Scalia
Roberts
82
78
Roberts
Alito
82
39
Warren
Fortas
80
391
Kennedy
Roberts
79
78
Brennan
Fortas
79
394
91%
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
88%
10 Highest Cumulative Voting Percentages
(1956 – 2005 Terms)
# Cases
Together
Justice 1
Justice 2
%
O’Connor
Roberts
91
23
Warren
Marshall
88
178
Reed
Clark
85
40
Fortas
Marshall
85
132
Warren
Brennan
82
1406
Scalia
Roberts
82
78
Roberts
Alito
82
39
Warren
Fortas
80
391
Kennedy
Roberts
79
78
Brennan
Fortas
79
394
4
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
28%
12 Lowest Cumulative Voting
Percentages (1956 – 2005 Terms)
Justice 1
Justice 2
%
#
Cases
Douglas
Rehnquist
28
513
Douglas
Burger
35
792
Douglas
Blackmun
36
695
Douglas
Powell
37
495
Frankfurter
Douglas
38
588
Douglas
Harlan II
39
1633
Marshall
Rehnquist
41
2819
Douglas
Burton
41
231
Black
Harlan II
41
1628
Blackmun
Thomas
42
284
Brennan
Rehnquist
42
2706
Douglas
Whittaker
42
523
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
12 Lowest Cumulative Voting
Percentages (1956 – 2005 Terms)
8 of the 12 Lowest CoVoting Percentages are
with Douglas!
Justice 1
Justice 2
%
#
Cases
Douglas
Rehnquist
28
513
Douglas
Burger
35
792
Douglas
Blackmun
36
695
Douglas
Powell
37
495
Frankfurter
Douglas
38
588
Douglas
Harlan II
39
1633
Marshall
Rehnquist
41
2819
Douglas
Burton
41
231
Black
Harlan II
41
1628
Blackmun
Thomas
42
284
Brennan
Rehnquist
42
2706
Douglas
Whittaker
42
523
5
Justices of the United States Supreme Court (1956 – 2005 Terms)
Rehnquist Court 6
Significant Cases Rehnquist Court 6:
(Aug. 3, 1994 to Sept. 28, 2005)
• U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton – no state term
limits for Congresspersons
(6th different composition of nine
Justices during the tenure of Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist.)
• Clinton v. Jones – President can be sued while in
office
• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale – private
organization can prohibit homosexuals
• Bush v. Gore – Florida recount must stop
• Lawrence v. Texas – sodomy laws
unconstitutional
• Atkins v. Virginia – cannot execute mentally
retarded criminals
• Grutter v. Bollinger – narrowly tailored affirmative
action is permissible
• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld – enemy combatants have
right to neutral decisionmaker
• Kelo v. City of New London – state can take
private property for commercial development
6
Relational Infrastructure of the Law
(Topic Assignment)
= Birth Control
= Abortion
2006
2007
2000
1997
1992
1988
1989
1990
1986
1983
1979
1979
1980
1981
1975
1976
1977
1971
1972
1973
1965
26 “Abortion and Birth Control” Cases in the S.Ct.
Timeline Layout
Timeline Layout with Citation Inter-linkages
7
Relational Infrastructure of the Law
(Depth of Treatment)
8
West Depth of Treatment
= Examined
= Discussed
= Cited
= Mentioned
West Depth of Treatment
= Examined
= Discussed
= Cited
9
West Depth of Treatment
= Examined
= Discussed
West Depth of Treatment
= Examined
10
West Depth of Treatment
” = Quoting
Opinions that Quote from Roe v. Wade
West Depth of Treatment
” = Quoting
11
Relational Infrastructure of the Law
(Case Status)
West Depth of Treatment
= Examined
= Discussed
= Cited
= Mentioned
12
West Status Flags
= at least one point is
no longer good law
= at least one point
has negative treatment
= case has some history
= case has been cited
22. Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. v. Casey, 492 U.S. 490 (June 29, 1992)
vs.
Informed consent provisions of Pennsylvania's abortion statute that require giving of truthful,
nonmisleading information about nature of abortion procedure, about attendant health risks of abortion
and of childbirth, and about probable gestational age of fetus do not impose undue burden on woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
– West Publishing
13
1. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (June 07, 1965)
vs.
“The First
Amendment has a
penumbra where
privacy is protected
from governmental
intrusion.”
– West Publishing
“Connecticut law forbidding use of
contraceptives unconstitutionally
intrudes upon the right of marital
privacy.”
– West Publishing
14
3. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (March 22, 1972)
vs.
Main Opinion
Concurrence
Dissent
Concurrence
Took No Part
“Massachusetts statute permitting married
persons to obtain contraceptives to prevent
pregnancy but prohibiting distribution of
contraceptives to single persons for that
purpose violates equal protection clause.”
– West Publishing
“Under right of privacy, individual, married or
single, has right to be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion into matters so
fundamentally affecting a person as decision
whether to bear or beget a child.” – West Publishing
4. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (Jan. 22, 1973)
5. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Jan. 22, 1973)
15
Concurrence
Concurrence
Dissent
Concurrence
Dissent
Dissent
Main Opinions
7
2
5. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (Jan. 22, 1973)
4k106 Fetal Age and
Viability: Trimester
ƒ “Prior to approximately the end of the first trimester of
pregnancy, the attending physician in consultation
with his patient is free to determine, without
regulation by state, that in his medical judgment the
patient's pregnancy should be terminated, and if that
decision is reached such judgment may be effectuated
by an abortion without interference by the state.”
ƒ “From and after approximately the end of the first
trimester of pregnancy, a state may regulate abortion
procedure to extent that the regulation reasonably
relates to preservation and protection of maternal
health.”
ƒ “If state is interested in protecting fetal life after
viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion
during that period except when necessary to preserve
the life or the health of the mother.”
– West Publishing
16
19. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (July 03, 1989)
vs.
“State's interest in protecting potential
human life does not come into existence
only at point of viability and thus, there
should not be rigid line allowing state
regulation of abortion after viability but
prohibiting regulation before viability.
(Per Chief Justice with two Justices
concurring.).”
“Today, Roe v. Wade, and the fundamental
constitutional right of women to decide
whether to terminate a pregnancy, survive
but are not secure.”
“I fear for the future. I fear for the liberty and
equality of the millions of women who have
lived and come of age in the 16 years since
Roe was decided. I fear for the integrity of,
and public esteem for, this Court.”
22. Planned Parenthood of SE Penn. v. Casey, 492 U.S. 490 (June 29, 1992)
vs.
“Reliance on Roe v. Wade rule's limitation on state
power required reaffirmance of Roe's essential holding
under doctrine of stare decisis; for two decades of
economic and social developments, people organized
intimate relationships and made choices that defined
their views of themselves and their places in society in
reliance on availability of abortion in event of
contraceptive failure.” – West Publishing
17
1970 Term – Blackmun / Burger First Together
10
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,2]
20
30
Black
Douglas
0
Harlan
Burger
Blackmun
Marshall
-10
Brennan
White
Stewart
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,1]
1985 Term – Their Last Together
10
0
White
Rehnquist
O'Connor
Powell
Burger
Brennan
Blackmun
-10
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,2]
20
30
Stevens
Marshall
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
m3ds$points[, 1:2][,1]
18
THE END
19