E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Jeffrey Fisher argues in the New York Times today that the Supreme Court should make public the votes to grant or deny review. The aim is to provide greater information to the public, so that we might learn whether, for example, specific justices have patterns in their votes to grant or deny review. I've heard this idea bruited about, but it ignores dynamic effects.
The first thing that would happen, I'm sure, is that the announced votes in all granted cases would be unanimous. From a justice's perspective, what's the point of saying, "Four of you are wrong in forcing me to hear this case on the merits"? (Felix Frankfurter occasionally did that in workers' compensation cases, but he was a jerk, and by the time he started doing it his colleagues knew he was.) Time enough to dis them after the argument. The mechanism here would be that the vote on granting review would be treated as a straw vote the first time around, with the "official" vote taken afterwards.
Because we do sometimes see dissents from denials of review, the effects of Fisher's proposed rule on denials might be a bit different, but not much, I think. The same "straw vote" mechanism would work, except that the judges who wanted to grant review would have to decide not, as is the current practice, whether to note their dissent from denial, but rather whether to "change" their vote when the second round of voting occurs. On the margin, we might see a few more dissents from denial of review than we see now, but my guess is that the effect would be small.