Analysts examine justices' questions to try to predict outcome

McClatchy reports:

Sarah A. Treul, a University of North Carolina political scientist, joined three other scholars in studying the transcripts of nearly 3,000 Supreme Court cases argued between 1979 and 2008. In a study published last year, the researchers concluded that words matter.

"While justices gather information and seek answers that will help them decide close to their preferred outcome, they do so in a way that provides emotional clues as to how they may act when they finally vote on the merits," the researchers wrote in The Journal of Politics.

"We can predict just over 70 percent of votes and cases" based on oral argument questions, said Timothy Johnson, one of the researchers on the paper and a University of Minnesota political scientist.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., too, has identified at least some connection between oral argument questions and final results.

In a 2005 study, Roberts examined 28 cases heard by the Supreme Court. He subsequently reported in the Journal of Supreme Court History that 86 percent of the time, the side receiving more questions from justices ultimately lost the case.
Other researchers have identified similar patterns, including the likelihood that an individual justice is more likely to vote against an attorney of whom he or she asks more questions.

If this pattern holds, the health care law could be on thin ice.

Widely considered one of two potential swing votes, Roberts asked 19 questions of Verrilli, the Obama administration's chief lawyer, during the crucial Tuesday arguments over the health care law's individual mandate. Roberts asked only two questions that day of Paul Clement, the attorney who wants the law struck down, a transcript review shows.

A look at the numbers.