I actually discussed this idea many years ago, but never went any further than that, and now Josh Blackman has set it up: a fantasy league based on the future dispositions of Supreme Court cases! The basic rules:
For each case on which the Supreme Court grants cert, points are allocated for
* The Outcome: Affirm or Reverse the lower Court. You will receive 1 point for predicting the outcome correctly.
* The Split: 5/4, 6/3, 7/2, 8/1, 9/0, or 4-1-4 , or Fragmented (no discernible majority opinion). You will receive 3 points for predicting the split.
* Which Justices are in the Majority and which are in the Minority. You will receive 1 point for each Justice correctly guessed. No points for recusals.
Looks like fun – and who doesn’t need more ways to waste time playing games?
[Thanks to Micah Shender for the link]
Rodger Lodger says:
What is difference between 4-1-4 and “Fragmented (no discernible majority opinion)”? Every plurality opinion decision lacks a majority opinion.
November 13, 2009, 9:47 amohiolawdog says:
What about points for predicting who will write the majority opinion? And maybe the dissenting opinions?
November 13, 2009, 10:04 amThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » And Speaking Of . . . says:
[...] Archives « It Was Only a Matter of Time: [...]
November 13, 2009, 10:14 amso and so says:
Ten bucks to play? Where does the money go?
November 13, 2009, 10:14 amohiolawdog says:
From and interview at WSJ Law Blog:
November 13, 2009, 10:19 amDave N says:
Rodger Lodger,
Not quite. For example, in Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000), Justice Stevens wrote the main opinion, joined by Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer.
However, Justices O’Connor and Kennedy did not join Justice Stevens’ analysis with respect to Part II. With respect to Part II, Justice O’Connor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.
I should note that Williams is a habeas case, and Justice O’Connor’s opinion is much more significant than Justice Stevens’ for habeas practice in general, though Justice Stevens’ opinion, finding that Williams received ineffective assistance of counsel, was more signficiant to Williams personally.
I realize Williams is an unusual opinion in how it announced its holdings, but it is certainly not unique.
November 13, 2009, 10:53 amDave N says:
By the way, based on how the game is scored, it looks like Williams would be scored as 6/3 reversed, authored by Justice Stevens — though I care much more about that 5/4 decision from Justice O’Connor.
November 13, 2009, 11:08 amNickM says:
That’s not a fantasy league. That’s a prediction pool.
A real fantasy league would have people select cases that they think would get cert grants.
Nick
November 13, 2009, 3:55 pmtraveler496 says:
It would be interesting to see the results of various rules-based entrants (e.g. one based on the hypothesis that judges systematically favor the interests of the legal profession, as discussed here).
November 13, 2009, 8:17 pmSteel Phoenix says:
It’s all fun and games until someone has to recuse themself.
November 13, 2009, 8:52 pmRandy says:
“Ten bucks to play? Where does the money go?”
For therapy.
November 13, 2009, 11:35 pmEli Rabett says:
Seems appropriate given how Scalia, Thomas and friends have long abandoned reality.
November 14, 2009, 1:21 pmIsangeles says:
I actually ran a sort of SCOTUS fantasy league a decade ago while in law school (more of a pool, really). Each participant chose three justices and earned points based on opinions they authored over the course of a term and the nature of those opinions. For example, opinions for the majority were worth more than others.
November 16, 2009, 3:20 pm