  Successful attempts to predict judges' votes shed light into how legal
decisions are made and, ultimately, into the behavior and evolution of the
judiciary. Here, we investigate to what extent it is possible to make
predictions of a justice's vote based on the other justices' votes in the same
case. For our predictions, we use models and methods that have been developed
to uncover hidden associations between actors in complex social networks. We
show that these methods are more accurate at predicting justice's votes than
forecasts made by legal experts and by algorithms that take into consideration
the content of the cases. We argue that, within our framework, high
predictability is a quantitative proxy for stable justice (and case) blocks,
which probably reflect stable a priori attitudes toward the law. We find that
U. S. Supreme Court justice votes are more predictable than one would expect
from an ideal court composed of perfectly independent justices. Deviations from
ideal behavior are most apparent in divided 5-4 decisions, where justice blocks
seem to be most stable. Moreover, we find evidence that justice predictability
decreased during the 50-year period spanning from the Warren Court to the
Rehnquist Court, and that aggregate court predictability has been significantly
lower during Democratic presidencies. More broadly, our results show that it is
possible to use methods developed for the analysis of complex social networks
to quantitatively investigate historical questions related to political
decision-making.
