fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--Kobe Bryant Punched A Teammate Over $100, And It Wasn’t Shaq

Jeff Pearlman is a New York Times bestselling author who has written for Sports Illustrated , ESPN and The Athletic , among other outlets .
His books include “ Football for a Buck , ” “ Gunslinger ” and “ The Bad Guys Won !
” This excerpt is from his latest book , “ Three-Ring Circus : Kobe , Shaq , Phil , and the Crazy Years of the Lakers Dynasty , ” which is available now .
It ’ s February 21 , 2002 .
We are in Cleveland .
Only this is pre-LeBron Cleveland , a ceaselessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an armpit .
There is nothing of particular note to do here , so when NBA players come to town , they do — largely — nothing .
Sit in the hotel room .
Flick around the remote control .
Eat .
Sleep .
That ’ s why Samaki Walker , Lakers power forward and a man who stands 6-foot-9 and weighs 240 pounds , is in his room at the Ritz-Carlton .
Sitting .
Flicking .
Eating .
Sleeping .
Then something catches his eye .
It ’ s the red blinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ table .
Walker assumes it ’ s rote road-trip insignificance .
Housekeeping , maybe .
A left-behind message for a departed guest .
But then , out of curiosity , he presses the voicemail button and holds the receiver to his ear .
Could that be … ?
And is he crying ?
Walker is in his sixth NBA season , and while the one-time Louisville star has never quite lived up to the potential that made him the ninth overall pick of the 1996 draft , he has seen a lot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s father spent 13 years in prison for aggravated robbery .
His mother battled severe alcoholism .
He skipped his senior year of basketball at Whitehall-Yearling ( Ohio ) High because he hated the coach .
He left Louisville early after being accused of using a Honda Accord given to his father by a booster .
He was once arrested for driving a motorcycle more than 100 miles per hour through the streets of Columbus , Ohio .
All those nuggets in time and space were jarring .
But this … this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his head around .
“ Yo , Samaki … [ sob ] I don ’ t know what [ sob ] I was [ sob ] thinking .
You ’ re a friend , man [ sob ] .
A good [ sob ] friend .
I ’ m so [ sob ] sorry .
I ’ m so [ sob ] , so sorry .
Really , just … ” As he marinates within the silence of his room , Walker replays the events of the past 24 hours — a string @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything he has experienced through his first 26 years of existence .
It ’ s the previous day , and the Lakers are holding a morning shootaround at Gund Arena in Cleveland .
Toward the end of the session , as ritual dictates , the members of the team line up to launch half-court shots , with the winner collecting $ 100 from each participant .
As befits an organization coming off two straight NBA championships , the enlistees form a Who ’ s Who of modern basketball achievement .
There ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose penchant for late-game heroics is legend .
There ’ s Rick Fox , the savvy small forward whose cinematic appearances and marriage to Vanessa Williams make him Tinseltown royalty .
There ’ s Brian Shaw , the cerebral point guard and locker room sage .
There ’ s Derek Fisher , the fast-talking spark plug from tiny Arkansas-Little Rock .
There ’ s Shaquille O ’ Neal , the larger-than-life ’ s-largest-life 7-foot-1 , 325-pound center .
There ’ s Kobe Bryant , the sixth-year straight-out-of-high-school superstar many consider to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men line up to shoot .
And miss .
And shoot .
And miss .
And shoot .
And miss .
Familiar trash talk serves as the soundtrack .
Slang barbs .
Surface insults .
Finally Bryant — 6-foot-6 , 212 pounds of long , sinewy muscle — picks up a ball , takes a bunch of steps behind the half-court line , trots four long paces forward , elongates his arms , pushes forward , and … and … and … “ Gim me my money !
” Bryant barks toward his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than $ 10 million for the season , and he ’ ll land an additional $ 20 million in endorsements with such companies as McDonald ’ s and Sprite .
The $ 1,200 in half-court-shot winnings is chump change .
But that ’ s not the point .
It ’ s pride .
Status .
Strike or be struck — that ’ s been Bryant ’ s modus operandi since entering the league six years ago .
Nobody was going to make Kobe Bryant his bitch .
To some , these contests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ participates , sideways grin glued to his face , knowing he can ’ t possibly win .
The same goes for Mark Madsen , the lumbering 6-foot-9 forward out of Stanford .
But in Kobe Bryant ’ s world , nothing is a game .
Ever .
Not checkers , not chess , not Connect Four , certainly not a half-court shot with $ 1,200 on the line .
That ’ s why , when the practice ends , he marches from teammate to teammate , palm extended .
He takes the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 100 from Fox , the $ 100 from Shaw , the $ 100 from Horry .
Bryant looks Walker over .
“ My money ?
” he commands .
“ I got ta get it to you later , ” Walker replies .
“ I don ’ t have it on me.
” Bryant flashes an agitated look but walks off .
Within the Lakers organization , there ’ s an understood 48-hour window for debts to be paid .
Bryant is young and rich and averaging 25.2 points per game for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBA crown .
What ’ s a delayed $ 100 in the grand scheme ?
Now , however , it ’ s the following morning — around 10 a.m. on February 21 .
The Laker players file onto the chartered team bus to make their way back to the facility for a brief practice run before the night ’ s matchup against the lowly Cavaliers .
Befitting their status as two of the team ’ s key veterans , O ’ Neal and Fox head toward the vehicle ’ s rear , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ghetto.
” They plop down into seats behind Jelani McCoy , a reserve center .
Walker follows , settling into his regular spot .
They are all listening to individual CD players , nodding their heads to the beats .
He marches toward Walker , glares downward .
“ Yo Maki , ” he says , “ you gon na give me my fucking money ?
” Walker pretends not to hear , so Bryant gets louder .
“ Maki , where the fuck is my fucking money ?
” This time Walker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This time , Walker doesn ’ t merely laugh at him .
No , this time Walker waves him off like an errant gnat .
“ I ’ ll give you your money , ” he says , “ when I have it.
” To Walker , it ’ s all a joke .
He and Bryant entered the league together , and the majority of players on the roster view Kobe ’ s latest efforts not unlike MC Hammer ’ s forever lampooned 1994 attempt at gangsta rap .
Bryant is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re very welcome ” type of guy — polite , suburban , cultured , well-heeled .
Truth be told , he ’ s always been a clumsy fit for this league of superstars with well-earned street cred — the Allen Iversons and Stephon Marburys .
The cursing is the latest addition to Bryant ’ s paint-by-numbers approach to sounding hardened , and it ’ s as authentic as $ 5 mink .
“ It was his Beanie Sigel phase , ” says McCoy .
“ Really fake.
” Now , if one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the steam rising from Bryant ’ s ears .
The four-time All-Star leans past Fox , draws back his right fist , lunges across Walker ’ s head , and — pop !
— punches him in the right eye .
For a moment , everyone on the bus freezes .
Just for a moment .
Walker , 28 pounds heavier than Bryant , gazes toward McCoy , his closest friend on the roster .
“ Did this fucker just hit me ?
” he says .
“ Did he just hit me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , clenches a fist , and — whoosh !
Jerome Crawford , O ’ Neal ’ s King Kong Bundy-esque bodyguard and constant companion , charges from five rows up .
He wraps Walker in a bear hug , but not before Walker launches his Discman at Bryant ’ s head .
Not surprisingly , the career 63 percent free throw shooter misses .
The device hits the floor and cracks apart .
Walker is screaming at Bryant .
“ Fuck you , bitch !
” Bryant is screaming at Walker .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ Neal , whose relationship with the young guard is both well chronicled and chronically awful , looks Walker in the face .
“ You ’ ve got ta fuck him up !
” he says in his deep baritone .
“ Fuck .
Him .
Up.
” Walker nods , then gazes toward Phil Jackson , the veteran head coach , whose ability to grasp ( and manipulate ) the psyches of his players is a longtime calling card .
“ Phil , ” Walker says , “ can you please stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a half seasons with Los Angeles , Jackson has endured some absolutely crazy moments .
He ’ s watched awful Shaq movies and long lines of hotel lobby groupies .
He ’ s had a player turn up with a “ please excuse his absence from practice ” note from a hotel clerk and wondered whether certain men were performing under the influence .
Now , the Lakers are somewhere in downtown Cleveland .
Jackson has no great desire to have his two-time defending champions pull to the side of a road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees what his players also see in Kobe Bryant — a selfish , entitled , me-first human whose social skills lag far behind his athletic gifts .
“ Hey , ” he says to the driver , “ pull over when you can.
” The bus stops .
Walker , his voice emotionless , looks at Bryant , who gazes toward the floor .
“ Well ?
” he says .
“ You wan na step off and take care of this ?
” Bryant ignores his teammate .
The silence is palpable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought , ” Walker says .
A pause .
“ You little bitch.
” With that , NBA life seems to continue as normal .
The bus arrives at the arena , the Lakers practice ( without Walker , who is told by Jackson to remain in a side room and calm down ) , the men return to the hotel to rest before the night ’ s game .
In his mind , Walker imagines a scenario in which he yanks Bryant aside and beats the snot out of him .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kobe Bryant .
He wants to hurt him .
Walker is a product of the inner city , a man whose time in Columbus taught him how to handle business .
“ I ’ m gon na fuck that boy up , ” he tells O ’ Neal at one point .
“ There ’ s gon na be nothing left of him.
” This is what Walker is pondering when he notices the light blinking on his hotel room phone ; when he listens to a sobbing Kobe Bryant ; when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a model of emotional stability .
Later in the evening , shortly before tipoff against the Cavs , Walker is on the treadmill at Gund Arena .
He is still angry , though the rage has subsided .
This is what it is to be a professional athlete .
You set distractions aside .
You move on .
You march forward .
You focus on the task at hand .
You … “ I ’ ve got this fucker outside , ” he says .
“ He wants to talk to you.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voice is unusually soft .
His shoulders are hunched .
He looks wounded , as if he ’ s about to once again weep .
“ Maki , ” he says , “ I ’ m really sorry .
That ’ s on me.
” The forward stops jogging and steps from the treadmill .
He actually feels surprising pangs of sympathy for the kid .
Walker — 100-mile-an-hour motorcycle roadster — knows what it is to mess up .
“ Listen , ” he says , “ we ’ re good .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ But you can ’ t go around hitting another man .
There are some issues you ’ ve got ta work out .
You can ’ t live life this way.
” That night , the Lakers take down the Cavs , 104–97 .
Kobe Bryant scores a team-high 32 points on 13-of-24 shooting .
He plays like a man possessed .
“ Kobe , ” Walker would say , “ was a great basketball player .
No doubt .
But sometimes you had to wonder whether he was comfortable being himself .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Excerpt from THREE-RING CIRCUS : Kobe , Shaq , Phil , and the Crazy Years of the Lakers Dynasty by Jeff Pearlman .
Copyright © 2020 by Jeff Pearlman .
Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company .
All rights reserved .

Jeff Pearlman is a New York Times bestselling author who has written for Sports Illustrated, ESPN and The Athletic, among other outlets. His books include “Football for a Buck,” “Gunslinger” and “The Bad Guys Won!” This excerpt is from his latest book, “Three-Ring Circus: Kobe, Shaq, Phil, and the Crazy Years of the Lakers Dynasty,” which is available now.
It’s February 21, 2002. We are in Cleveland. Only this is pre-LeBron Cleveland, a ceaselessly pewter-skyed city that provides the razzle of an armpit. There is nothing of particular note to do here, so when NBA players come to town, they do — largely — nothing. Sit in the hotel room. Flick around the remote control. Eat. Sleep.
That’s why Samaki Walker, Lakers power forward and a man who stands 6-foot-9 and weighs 240 pounds, is in his room at the Ritz-Carlton. Sitting. Flicking. Eating. Sleeping.
Then something catches his eye. It’s the red blinking light atop the phone on his night table.
Blink.
Blink.
Blink.
Walker assumes it’s rote road-trip insignificance. Housekeeping, maybe. A left-behind message for a departed guest. But then, out of curiosity, he presses the voicemail button and holds the receiver to his ear.
“Yo [sob] Samaki …”
Is that …?
“Maki [sob], look, you’re [sob] my boy [sob] …”
Could that be …?
“I [sob] just … I just [sob] …”
That sounds like …
“Man [sob] … I’m so [sob] sorry …”
Kobe Bryant?
“Maki [sob], really, I’m [sob] …”
And is he crying?
Walker is in his sixth NBA season, and while the one-time Louisville star has never quite lived up to the potential that made him the ninth overall pick of the 1996 draft, he has seen a lot. In no particular order: Walker’s father spent 13 years in prison for aggravated robbery. His mother battled severe alcoholism. He skipped his senior year of basketball at Whitehall-Yearling (Ohio) High because he hated the coach. He left Louisville early after being accused of using a Honda Accord given to his father by a booster. He was once arrested for driving a motorcycle more than 100 miles per hour through the streets of Columbus, Ohio. All those nuggets in time and space were jarring.
But this … this is something Samaki Walker can’t wrap his head around.
He continues to listen.
“Yo, Samaki … [sob] I don’t know what [sob] I was [sob] thinking. You’re a friend, man [sob]. A good [sob] friend. I’m so [sob] sorry. I’m so [sob], so sorry. Really, just …”
Click.
As he marinates within the silence of his room, Walker replays the events of the past 24 hours — a string of happenings that, weirdness-wise, rivals anything he has experienced through his first 26 years of existence. It’s the previous day, and the Lakers are holding a morning shootaround at Gund Arena in Cleveland. Toward the end of the session, as ritual dictates, the members of the team line up to launch half-court shots, with the winner collecting $100 from each participant.
As befits an organization coming off two straight NBA championships, the enlistees form a Who’s Who of modern basketball achievement. There’s Robert Horry, the dead-eye three-point gunner whose penchant for late-game heroics is legend. There’s Rick Fox, the savvy small forward whose cinematic appearances and marriage to Vanessa Williams make him Tinseltown royalty. There’s Brian Shaw, the cerebral point guard and locker room sage. There’s Derek Fisher, the fast-talking spark plug from tiny Arkansas-Little Rock. There’s Shaquille O’Neal, the larger-than-life’s-largest-life 7-foot-1, 325-pound center. There’s Kobe Bryant, the sixth-year straight-out-of-high-school superstar many consider to be the second coming of Michael Jordan.
The men line up to shoot. And miss. And shoot. And miss. And shoot. And miss. Familiar trash talk serves as the soundtrack. Slang barbs. Surface insults. Finally Bryant — 6-foot-6, 212 pounds of long, sinewy muscle — picks up a ball, takes a bunch of steps behind the half-court line, trots four long paces forward, elongates his arms, pushes forward, and … and … and …
Swish.
Fuuuuck.
“Gimme my money!” Bryant barks toward his teammates.
“Gimme my fucking money!”
The Lakers are paying Bryant more than $10 million for the season, and he’ll land an additional $20 million in endorsements with such companies as McDonald’s and Sprite. The $1,200 in half-court-shot winnings is chump change. But that’s not the point. It’s pride. Status. Strike or be struck — that’s been Bryant’s modus operandi since entering the league six years ago. Nobody was going to make Kobe Bryant his bitch. To some, these contests are mere game. O’Neal participates, sideways grin glued to his face, knowing he can’t possibly win. The same goes for Mark Madsen, the lumbering 6-foot-9 forward out of Stanford. But in Kobe Bryant’s world, nothing is a game. Ever. Not checkers, not chess, not Connect Four, certainly not a half-court shot with $1,200 on the line. That’s why, when the practice ends, he marches from teammate to teammate, palm extended. He takes the $100 from O’Neal, the $100 from Fox, the $100 from Shaw, the $100 from Horry.
Bryant looks Walker over. “My money?” he commands.
“I gotta get it to you later,” Walker replies. “I don’t have it on me.”
Bryant flashes an agitated look but walks off. Within the Lakers organization, there’s an understood 48-hour window for debts to be paid. Bryant is young and rich and averaging 25.2 points per game for a team expected to win yet another NBA crown. What’s a delayed $100 in the grand scheme?
Now, however, it’s the following morning — around 10 a.m. on February 21. The Laker players file onto the chartered team bus to make their way back to the facility for a brief practice run before the night’s matchup against the lowly Cavaliers. Befitting their status as two of the team’s key veterans, O’Neal and Fox head toward the vehicle’s rear, which they lovingly refer to as “the Ghetto.” They plop down into seats behind Jelani McCoy, a reserve center. Walker follows, settling into his regular spot. They are all listening to individual CD players, nodding their heads to the beats.
Then Bryant boards the bus.
He marches toward Walker, glares downward. “Yo Maki,” he says, “you gonna give me my fucking money?”
Walker pretends not to hear, so Bryant gets louder. “Maki, where the fuck is my fucking money?”
This time Walker doesn’t merely ignore him.
This time, Walker doesn’t merely laugh at him.
No, this time Walker waves him off like an errant gnat. “I’ll give you your money,” he says, “when I have it.”
To Walker, it’s all a joke. He and Bryant entered the league together, and the majority of players on the roster view Kobe’s latest efforts not unlike MC Hammer’s forever lampooned 1994 attempt at gangsta rap. Bryant is a “Thank you” and “You’re very welcome” type of guy — polite, suburban, cultured, well-heeled. Truth be told, he’s always been a clumsy fit for this league of superstars with well-earned street cred — the Allen Iversons and Stephon Marburys. The cursing is the latest addition to Bryant’s paint-by-numbers approach to sounding hardened, and it’s as authentic as $5 mink.
“It was his Beanie Sigel phase,” says McCoy. “Really fake.”
Now, if one looks closely enough, he can see the steam rising from Bryant’s ears. The four-time All-Star leans past Fox, draws back his right fist, lunges across Walker’s head, and — pop!— punches him in the right eye.
For a moment, everyone on the bus freezes. Just for a moment.
Walker, 28 pounds heavier than Bryant, gazes toward McCoy, his closest friend on the roster. “Did this fucker just hit me?” he says. “Did he just hit me?”
McCoy nods. Walker rises, clenches a fist, and — whoosh! Jerome Crawford, O’Neal’s King Kong Bundy-esque bodyguard and constant companion, charges from five rows up. He wraps Walker in a bear hug, but not before Walker launches his Discman at Bryant’s head. Not surprisingly, the career 63 percent free throw shooter misses. The device hits the floor and cracks apart. Walker is screaming at Bryant. “Fuck you, bitch!” Bryant is screaming at Walker. “No, fuck you!” O’Neal, whose relationship with the young guard is both well chronicled and chronically awful, looks Walker in the face. “You’ve gotta fuck him up!” he says in his deep baritone. “Fuck. Him. Up.”
Walker nods, then gazes toward Phil Jackson, the veteran head coach, whose ability to grasp (and manipulate) the psyches of his players is a longtime calling card. “Phil,” Walker says, “can you please stop the bus?”
In his two and a half seasons with Los Angeles, Jackson has endured some absolutely crazy moments. He’s watched awful Shaq movies and long lines of hotel lobby groupies. He’s had a player turn up with a “please excuse his absence from practice” note from a hotel clerk and wondered whether certain men were performing under the influence.
Now, the Lakers are somewhere in downtown Cleveland. Jackson has no great desire to have his two-time defending champions pull to the side of a road in downtown Cleveland. However, he sees what his players also see in Kobe Bryant — a selfish, entitled, me-first human whose social skills lag far behind his athletic gifts. “Hey,” he says to the driver, “pull over when you can.”
The bus stops. Walker, his voice emotionless, looks at Bryant, who gazes toward the floor. “Well?” he says. “You wanna step off and take care of this?”
Bryant ignores his teammate. The silence is palpable.
“That’s what I thought,” Walker says. A pause. “You little bitch.”
With that, NBA life seems to continue as normal. The bus arrives at the arena, the Lakers practice (without Walker, who is told by Jackson to remain in a side room and calm down), the men return to the hotel to rest before the night’s game. In his mind, Walker imagines a scenario in which he yanks Bryant aside and beats the snot out of him. He doesn’t merely want to hit Kobe Bryant. He wants to hurt him. Walker is a product of the inner city, a man whose time in Columbus taught him how to handle business. “I’m gonna fuck that boy up,” he tells O’Neal at one point. “There’s gonna be nothing left of him.”
This is what Walker is pondering when he notices the light blinking on his hotel room phone; when he listens to a sobbing Kobe Bryant; when he realizes his teammate isn’t exactly a model of emotional stability.
Later in the evening, shortly before tipoff against the Cavs, Walker is on the treadmill at Gund Arena. He is still angry, though the rage has subsided. This is what it is to be a professional athlete. You set distractions aside. You move on. You march forward. You focus on the task at hand. You …
“Hey, Samaki.”
It’s Crawford, O’Neal’s bodyguard.
“I’ve got this fucker outside,” he says. “He wants to talk to you.”
Moments later, Bryant approaches. His voice is unusually soft. His shoulders are hunched. He looks wounded, as if he’s about to once again weep.
“Maki,” he says, “I’m really sorry. That’s on me.”
The forward stops jogging and steps from the treadmill. He actually feels surprising pangs of sympathy for the kid. Walker — 100-mile-an-hour motorcycle roadster — knows what it is to mess up.
“Listen,” he says, “we’re good. Seriously, we’re good. But you can’t go around hitting another man. There are some issues you’ve gotta work out. You can’t live life this way.”
That night, the Lakers take down the Cavs, 104–97. Kobe Bryant scores a team-high 32 points on 13-of-24 shooting. He plays like a man possessed.
“Kobe,” Walker would say, “was a great basketball player. No doubt. But sometimes you had to wonder whether he was comfortable being himself. Whether he knew who he really was.”
Excerpt from THREE-RING CIRCUS: Kobe, Shaq, Phil, and the Crazy Years of the Lakers Dynasty by Jeff Pearlman. Copyright © 2020 by Jeff Pearlman. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-26--How COVID-19 Has Changed The College Experience

Schools of all levels are struggling to find a new way to educate students .
Universities , in particular , @ @ @ @ @ navigating classes and campus life .
On this week ’ s show , we talk @ @ @ @ @ quarantined dorm life at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a scientist who helped design a @ @ @ @ @ the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign .
Don ’ t want to miss an episode @ @ @ @ @ s weekly look at what we know — and what we know we don ’ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app .
For example , here ’ s where @ @ @ @ @ Podcasts and Spotify .

Schools of all levels are struggling to find a new way to educate students. Universities, in particular, have had a difficult time navigating classes and campus life. On this week’s show, we talk to a student living a quarantined dorm life at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a scientist who helped design a different approach to testing for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Don’t want to miss an episode of PODCAST-19, FiveThirtyEight’s weekly look at what we know — and what we know we don’t know — about COVID-19? Subscribe on your favorite podcasting app. For example, here’s where to do it on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-25--How Amy Coney Barrett Could Change The Supreme Court

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history .
On Saturday , just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement : Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals .
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter .
If she is confirmed — and right now , Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts .
Or , put another way , Roberts will no longer be the court ’ s median .
( He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years , often out of apparent concern for the court ’ s institutional legitimacy . )
Barrett ’ s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court ’ s center of gravity .
According to one estimate of her ideological leanings , Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court , just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clarence Thomas , and to the right of Trump ’ s two previous nominees , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh .
That ’ s a best-case scenario for liberals , too .
Several experts told me that based on Barrett ’ s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor , she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas .
But even in that third-place slot , Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court , and in the past , several of the court ’ s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents .
But over the past several decades , the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives .
Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort .
Trump has even said that he was “ saving ” Barrett for Ginsburg ’ s seat .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Christians in particular , and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states ’ ability to restrict abortion access , or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade , the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion .
She also criticized Roberts ’ s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article , which is significant if she ’ s confirmed by early November , as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screams ‘ reliable conservative , ’ ” said John Kastellec , a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations .
“ If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade , she ’ d be it.
” So it ’ s hard to imagine that Barrett won ’ t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that ’ s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings .
This line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Democrats , though .
When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017 , she was criticized for her conservative ideology , but that backfired somewhat on Democrats , in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett , a Catholic , would be guided by “ dogma ” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle .
But this time around , Kastellec and other experts told me , Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion , the Affordable Care Act , gun restrictions , and a host of other liberal precedents .
Barrett is young , too .
At 48 , she could be on the court for decades to come .
That means the confirmation hearings , which are likely to start around October 12 , will probably be extremely rancorous .
But it ’ s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett ’ s nomination after only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambitious timeline like that seems very possible , since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump ’ s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named .
And several Republicans , including Trump , have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump ’ s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election .
The rush to confirm a new justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaking , however .
It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations , but it could also turn off other voters , since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election .
But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it .

Tomorrow will mark the start of what could be one of the swiftest Supreme Court fights in modern history. On Saturday, just a week after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump is expected to announce his nominee for her replacement: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is currently serving on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The nomination battle over Barrett will be bitter.
If she is confirmed — and right now, Republicans have the votes — her presence on the court will give the conservative wing a solid 6-3 majority, allowing the other conservative justices to bypass Chief Justice John Roberts. Or, put another way, Roberts will no longer be the court’s median. (He has cast several pivotal votes with the liberal justices over the years, often out of apparent concern for the court’s institutional legitimacy.)
Barrett’s appointment marks an enormous shift in the Supreme Court’s center of gravity. According to one estimate of her ideological leanings, Barrett will be the third-most conservative justice on the court, just to the left of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, and to the right of Trump’s two previous nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. That’s a best-case scenario for liberals, too. Several experts told me that based on Barrett’s previous rulings as a federal judge and writings as a law professor, she could end up to the right of Alito — or even Thomas.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
But even in that third-place slot, Barrett replacing Ginsburg is one of the largest swings on the modern court since 1953:
Big swings in the court’s makeup are rare Supreme Court justice replacements by the biggest changes in ideological rank, where 1 is most liberal and 9 is most conservative the biggest shifts on the modern supreme Court term Justice Rank Replacement rank change 1991 Marshall 1 Thomas 9 +8 1969 Warren 2 Burger 9 +7 2020 Ginsburg 2 Barrett 7 +5* 1969 Fortas 3 Blackmun 8 +5 1990 Brennan 2 Souter 5 +3 1962 Frankfurter 8 Goldberg 5 -3 1965 Goldberg 5 Fortas 2 -3 *Estimated change, based on JCS score
When there were more than nine justices in a term, we dropped the justice(s) who voted in the fewest cases (e.g., O’Connor in 2005, Douglas in 1975). Source: Martin-Quinn scores
Of course, it’s difficult to predict how any given nominee will vote once she is on the court, and in the past, several of the court’s most liberal justices were appointed by Republican presidents. But over the past several decades, the conservative legal movement has worked to cultivate a stable of potential justices who are consistent ideological conservatives. Barrett is in many ways the poster child for that effort.
Trump has even said that he was “saving” Barrett for Ginsburg’s seat. That’s because Barrett is a favorite of conservative Christians in particular, and is widely seen as a justice who would be willing to significantly expand states’ ability to restrict abortion access, or even vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that established a constitutional right to abortion. She also criticized Roberts’s 2012 vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act in a recent law review article, which is significant if she’s confirmed by early November, as the Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the law a week after the election.
“Everything about her screams ‘reliable conservative,’” said John Kastellec, a politics professor at Princeton University who studies Supreme Court nominations. “If you wanted a person who seems like a very safe bet to strike down Roe v. Wade, she’d be it.”
So it’s hard to imagine that Barrett won’t turn out to be the steadfast conservative her boosters are hoping for — and that’s a point Democrats are likely to drive home during her confirmation hearings. This line of attack isn’t without risks for Democrats, though. When Barrett was nominated to the 7th Circuit in 2017, she was criticized for her conservative ideology, but that backfired somewhat on Democrats, in part because Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggested during the hearings that Barrett, a Catholic, would be guided by “dogma” in her judicial decision-making — a comment that many religious conservatives saw as an anti-Catholic dog whistle.
But this time around, Kastellec and other experts told me, Democrats are likely to steer clear of attacking Barrett on personal traits, and instead emphasize what a hard conservative swing on the court could mean for abortion, the Affordable Care Act, gun restrictions, and a host of other liberal precedents. Barrett is young, too. At 48, she could be on the court for decades to come.
That means the confirmation hearings, which are likely to start around October 12, will probably be extremely rancorous. But it’s doubtful that would stop the GOP from steaming ahead with a vote on Barrett’s nomination after only a few weeks of deliberation. An ambitious timeline like that seems very possible, since Senate Republicans currently have a solid majority willing to vote on Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court even before Barrett was named. And several Republicans, including Trump, have indicated that they want to make sure the vote happens before Election Day so that the new justice is seated in time to resolve any election-related disputes — potentially giving Trump’s new nominee enormous power over the result of the election.
The rush to confirm a new justice is something of a gamble, electorally speaking, however. It could galvanize some religious conservatives and other Republican stalwarts who care a lot about judicial nominations, but it could also turn off other voters, since recent polls have indicated that many Americans are not enthusiastic about the idea of confirming a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election. But having a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court is a big enough win for Republicans that they may be willing to risk a lot to achieve it.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-28--How A Conservative 6-3 Majority Would Reshape The Supreme Court

President Trump ’ s third nominee to the Supreme Court is Amy Coney Barrett .
The nomination process is moving ahead at warp speed , and the court is that much closer to having a 6-3 conservative majority .
The historic nature of this nomination is abundantly clear .
If Barrett is confirmed , the Supreme Court could be the most conservative it ’ s been in 70 years .
But what does that mean for the way the justices rule going forward ?
It ’ s hard to predict how any given nominee will rule once serving on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chances of “ a conservative revolution ” on the court are high .
It ’ s not just that the liberals are losing a key justice or that the conservative balance of power is about to lurch to the right .
It ’ s that the types of cases the court will hear are about to dramatically change , too .
Ultimately , we don ’ t know whether the conservative majority will rush to strike down or hollow out long-standing liberal precedents like Roe v. Wade .
But Supreme Court experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see the legal conservative movement seize this moment , and as such , we should brace for a wave of rulings that move the law fundamentally to the right — on everything from hot-button cultural issues like gun rights and abortion to more legalistic , but nevertheless important , topics like the power of the executive branch .
And , for the first time in decades , there won ’ t be a single swing justice with the power to tip a controversial decision one way or the other .
Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way the court will swing on a given ruling , it will require two conservative justices to stop the court from taking a hard right turn on any given issue .
And at this point , it ’ s not clear who that second conservative justice might be .
The liberals have lost their most powerful dissenter The most immediate impact of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death is that the liberal wing of the court has lost a seat , and the court ’ s left-leaning justices , who have spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what power they can as a minority bloc , are now in an even weaker position .
But Ginsburg also had a distinctive legal voice and long history as an advocate for gender equality , significantly reshaping this area of the law .
And among the four Democratic-appointed justices who have been on the court together since 2010 , Ginsburg was one of the most reliable and prominent liberal voices .
She already was a seasoned Supreme Court veteran by that point and had established herself as a solid liberal vote , particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the rights of criminal defendants .
But she became a liberal superstar in the last decade of her life for another reason : her dissents .
Ginsburg ’ s dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder , in which she wrote that the decision by five GOP-appointed justices to invalidate a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was like “ throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet , ” earned her the moniker the Notorious RBG and with it , a place on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes across the country .
That reputation as an ardent dissenter was well earned : By the time of her death , Ginsburg had the highest dissent rate in close cases of any Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall .
Although in a sign of just how conservative and polarized the court has already become , she is not that far ahead of the other liberal justices still on the court .
The symbolic power of Ginsburg ’ s dissents also served a practical purpose , according to Lee Epstein , a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who studies the Supreme Court .
“ Her dissents may have forced the majority to think hard about its decision and to respond to her dissents , ” Epstein said .
But more importantly , she said that they called attention to the majority ’ s decision and set a marker for a different outcome — either by a future court or Congress .
One of Ginsburg ’ s fieriest dissents was in 2007 , when a five-justice , all-male majority ruled that Lilly Ledbetter , a female employee of Goodyear Tire & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company for 19 years of gender-based pay discrimination because she had filed her suit more than 180 days after the first instance of discrimination .
Ginsburg delivered her dissent aloud from the bench , accusing her colleagues of either ignoring or failing to comprehend the “ insidious ” nature of pay discrimination , and called on Congress to act .
It worked .
Two years later , Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 , which changed the statute of limitations so that fair-pay cases could be filed within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which discrimination occurred .
“ Dissents can be a powerful thing , particularly if you ’ re stuck in the minority for a long time , as Ginsburg was , ” Epstein said .
“ It was her way of defending left-leaning legal regimes on a very conservative Republican court.
” With Ginsburg ’ s death , the other liberal justices — especially Sonia Sotomayor , the most left-leaning justice on the court — may feel the need to step into the role of dissenter in chief .
The conservative wing will no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also means a huge loss of power for Roberts .
For the first time in decades , there will be no swing justice poised to decide whether the liberals or conservatives will prevail in close cases .
According to our analysis from earlier this year , Justice Brett Kavanaugh will probably be the new median on the court , assuming the new justice falls to his right , and that means the center of gravity within the conservative wing will shift dramatically — especially if the new justice is closer ideologically to Samuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s two most right-leaning justices .
One way to think about what the court could look like is to revisit some of the recent 5-4 decisions in which Roberts cast a deciding vote with the liberals — decisions that presumably would have gone the other way with Kavanaugh as the new median .
Just this past term , Roberts joined the liberals in a high-profile abortion case involving a Louisiana law that was nearly identical to a Texas restriction struck down by the court in 2016 .
Roberts wrote in his concurring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 case was decided incorrectly , but , at the same time , he said he wasn ’ t willing to undo the precedent it set .
The other four conservatives , on the other hand , were perfectly ready to start rethinking fundamental aspects of the court ’ s approach to abortion rights .
Tom Clark , a political scientist at Emory University , said that with any new Trump nominee on the court , he expects the conservatives to quickly start allowing a much wider range of restrictions on abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sixth conversative on the court , he wasn ’ t sure the Supreme Court would go as far as to say , “ We ’ re throwing out the principle that you have the right to get an abortion , ” adding “ [ T ] hat would be an extremely radical move.
” He thinks , however , that the court will permit Republican-controlled states to erode abortion access much more rapidly than Roberts was willing to tolerate .
If Trump wins a second term , his administration will also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last year and this year , Roberts joined the liberals in two cases involving major Trump administration policies — the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and the attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , the Obama-era program that grants certain young undocumented immigrants temporary permission to remain in the country legally .
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in both cases and drew on similar reasoning , arguing that while the Trump administration might have the power to include an extra question on the census or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order , they didn ’ t follow the laws governing executive agencies .
The other conservatives didn ’ t see that as a violation of the law , though — which means that Trump policies might have an even friendlier audience at the Supreme Court in the future .
It ’ s possible , of course , that Roberts will continue his campaign of moderation and try to persuade one of the conservatives to join him and the liberals in cases where he thinks his fellow GOP appointees are going too far .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible candidates for that kind of defection — especially Gorsuch , who did vote with Roberts and the liberals this year in a case involving workplace discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees .
But those coalitions could be more difficult for Roberts to forge going forward , particularly since his interests may be more aligned with the moderate liberals than with some of his fellow conservatives .
This year , for example , he voted with Kagan about as often as he did with Alito , more often with Kagan than he did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Breyer as he did with Thomas .
Roberts does retain one big , important power , though .
As chief justice , he can assign who writes the opinion in any case where he ’ s in the majority .
That might make for a change in strategy for him , however .
Instead of trying to bridge the divide between the left and right , Roberts might side with his fellow conservatives more often , as it would enable him to claim the opinion in cases where he wants to rule as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in much greater danger Even before Ginsburg ’ s death , the Roberts court was overturning precedents with more narrow 5-4 majorities than any other modern court in Supreme Court history — and those rulings usually went in a conservative direction .
Now , that seems likely to accelerate .
And not just because the conservative majority may be open to overturning precedents .
Lower courts , legal advocates , and state legislatures all calibrate their actions , at least to some extent , based on how far they think the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legal advocates , for example , have deliberately adopted a more incremental strategy up until now , in part because they thought it was unrealistic that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade outright .
“ That kind of incrementalist thinking will be out the window , ” said Leah Litman , a law professor at the University of Michigan .
Meanwhile , the Supreme Court largely responds to the arguments that are brought to its doorstep , and at least one study has indicated that the justices may be more likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been asked to do so explicitly .
This kind of pressure outside the court is hard to measure and quantify — after all , there ’ s no way of knowing what kinds of laws or cases would end up at the Supreme Court if Ginsburg weren ’ t being replaced , most likely by a conservative .
But it ’ s important to understand , nonetheless .
Because even before Ginsburg ’ s death , there were signs that Trump ’ s previous nominations had emboldened conservative advocates to challenge precedents that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case this term which asks the court to reconsider a 1990 decision about religious exemptions written by former Justice Antonin Scalia , which many conservatives now regard as flawed because it allows the government to impose some restrictions on religious practices .
However , we might be surprised by where the court goes next or where fissures emerge among the GOP-appointed justices .
The legal landscape is about to change dramatically , so while some in the conservative legal movement might be eager to prioritize and move forward quickly on particular issues , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s nominees could turn out to be wildcards , at least some of the time — even Barrett .
“ The conservative legal movement may be very eager to get a certain person on the court , but once that person is there , they can do what they want and the Federalist Society can ’ t fire them , ” Epstein said .
“ So we ’ ll just have to see what happens .
When the center of the court moves right , will the justices feel like , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s nothing stopping us , we ’ re going to plow ahead ’ ?
That might very well happen .
But they might also get a little cautious .
”

President Trump’s third nominee to the Supreme Court is Amy Coney Barrett. The nomination process is moving ahead at warp speed, and the court is that much closer to having a 6-3 conservative majority.
The historic nature of this nomination is abundantly clear. If Barrett is confirmed, the Supreme Court could be the most conservative it’s been in 70 years. But what does that mean for the way the justices rule going forward?
It’s hard to predict how any given nominee will rule once serving on the bench. But we do know that the chances of “a conservative revolution” on the court are high. It’s not just that the liberals are losing a key justice or that the conservative balance of power is about to lurch to the right. It’s that the types of cases the court will hear are about to dramatically change, too.
Ultimately, we don’t know whether the conservative majority will rush to strike down or hollow out long-standing liberal precedents like Roe v. Wade. But Supreme Court experts did stress that we’re likely to see the legal conservative movement seize this moment, and as such, we should brace for a wave of rulings that move the law fundamentally to the right — on everything from hot-button cultural issues like gun rights and abortion to more legalistic, but nevertheless important, topics like the power of the executive branch.
4 Senate races to watch as GOP rushes to fill Justice Ginsburgâs seat
And, for the first time in decades, there won’t be a single swing justice with the power to tip a controversial decision one way or the other. Instead of Chief Justice John Roberts single-handedly deciding which way the court will swing on a given ruling, it will require two conservative justices to stop the court from taking a hard right turn on any given issue. And at this point, it’s not clear who that second conservative justice might be.
The liberals have lost their most powerful dissenter
The most immediate impact of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is that the liberal wing of the court has lost a seat, and the court’s left-leaning justices, who have spent the past 10 years trying to wield what power they can as a minority bloc, are now in an even weaker position. But Ginsburg also had a distinctive legal voice and long history as an advocate for gender equality, significantly reshaping this area of the law.
And among the four Democratic-appointed justices who have been on the court together since 2010, Ginsburg was one of the most reliable and prominent liberal voices. She already was a seasoned Supreme Court veteran by that point and had established herself as a solid liberal vote, particularly in cases involving civil rights, unions and the rights of criminal defendants.
Ginsburg was very liberal on unions and civil rights Share of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s liberal votes, by issue on close cases issue Total Cases Liberal Decisions Share Unions 15 15 100.0% Civil Rights 83 79 95.2 Criminal Procedure 153 141 92.2 Due Process 25 21 84.0 Judicial Power 47 35 74.5 First Amendment 33 24 72.7 Economic Activity 51 36 70.6 Federalism 32 22 68.8 Close cases are those in which the majority decision was four or five and the minority was three or four, and excludes cases with no majority. Issues with fewer than 10 cases are excluded. Total cases excludes those for which the Supreme Court Database could not specify whether the decision was liberal or conservative. Source: Supreme Court Database
But she became a liberal superstar in the last decade of her life for another reason: her dissents. Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, in which she wrote that the decision by five GOP-appointed justices to invalidate a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was like “throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” earned her the moniker the Notorious RBG and with it, a place on tote bags and coffee mugs in liberal homes across the country.
That reputation as an ardent dissenter was well earned: By the time of her death, Ginsburg had the highest dissent rate in close cases of any Supreme Court justice since Thurgood Marshall. Although in a sign of just how conservative and polarized the court has already become, she is not that far ahead of the other liberal justices still on the court.
Ginsburg was one of the court’s top dissenters Top 10 justices by share of dissenting votes on close cases, since 1953 Justice Total Cases Dissents Share Marshall 725 419 57.8% Ginsburg 465 267 57.4 Breyer 449 255 56.8 Sotomayor 171 96 56.1 Kagan 149 83 55.7 Stevens 857 467 54.5 Souter 347 188 54.2 Brennan 973 516 53.0 Douglas 528 280 53.0 Harlan 374 186 49.7 Close cases are those in which the majority decision was four or five and the minority was three or four, and excludes cases with no majority. Source: Supreme Court Database
The symbolic power of Ginsburg’s dissents also served a practical purpose, according to Lee Epstein, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis who studies the Supreme Court. “Her dissents may have forced the majority to think hard about its decision and to respond to her dissents,” Epstein said. But more importantly, she said that they called attention to the majority’s decision and set a marker for a different outcome — either by a future court or Congress.
One of Ginsburg’s fieriest dissents was in 2007, when a five-justice, all-male majority ruled that Lilly Ledbetter, a female employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, couldn’t sue the company for 19 years of gender-based pay discrimination because she had filed her suit more than 180 days after the first instance of discrimination. Ginsburg delivered her dissent aloud from the bench, accusing her colleagues of either ignoring or failing to comprehend the “insidious” nature of pay discrimination, and called on Congress to act. It worked. Two years later, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which changed the statute of limitations so that fair-pay cases could be filed within 180 days of the last paycheck in which discrimination occurred.
“Dissents can be a powerful thing, particularly if you’re stuck in the minority for a long time, as Ginsburg was,” Epstein said. “It was her way of defending left-leaning legal regimes on a very conservative Republican court.”
With Ginsburg’s death, the other liberal justices — especially Sonia Sotomayor, the most left-leaning justice on the court — may feel the need to step into the role of dissenter in chief.
The conservative wing will no longer need Roberts
Ginsburg’s death also means a huge loss of power for Roberts. For the first time in decades, there will be no swing justice poised to decide whether the liberals or conservatives will prevail in close cases. According to our analysis from earlier this year, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will probably be the new median on the court, assuming the new justice falls to his right, and that means the center of gravity within the conservative wing will shift dramatically — especially if the new justice is closer ideologically to Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the court’s two most right-leaning justices.
One way to think about what the court could look like is to revisit some of the recent 5-4 decisions in which Roberts cast a deciding vote with the liberals — decisions that presumably would have gone the other way with Kavanaugh as the new median. Just this past term, Roberts joined the liberals in a high-profile abortion case involving a Louisiana law that was nearly identical to a Texas restriction struck down by the court in 2016. Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion this summer that he still thinks the 2016 case was decided incorrectly, but, at the same time, he said he wasn’t willing to undo the precedent it set. The other four conservatives, on the other hand, were perfectly ready to start rethinking fundamental aspects of the court’s approach to abortion rights.
Tom Clark, a political scientist at Emory University, said that with any new Trump nominee on the court, he expects the conservatives to quickly start allowing a much wider range of restrictions on abortion. But he cautioned that even with a sixth conversative on the court, he wasn’t sure the Supreme Court would go as far as to say, “We’re throwing out the principle that you have the right to get an abortion,” adding “[T]hat would be an extremely radical move.” He thinks, however, that the court will permit Republican-controlled states to erode abortion access much more rapidly than Roberts was willing to tolerate.
If Trump wins a second term, his administration will also be free of a major roadblock in Roberts. Last year and this year, Roberts joined the liberals in two cases involving major Trump administration policies — the attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and the attempt to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program that grants certain young undocumented immigrants temporary permission to remain in the country legally. Roberts wrote the majority opinion in both cases and drew on similar reasoning, arguing that while the Trump administration might have the power to include an extra question on the census or cancel a previous president’s executive order, they didn’t follow the laws governing executive agencies. The other conservatives didn’t see that as a violation of the law, though — which means that Trump policies might have an even friendlier audience at the Supreme Court in the future.
It’s possible, of course, that Roberts will continue his campaign of moderation and try to persuade one of the conservatives to join him and the liberals in cases where he thinks his fellow GOP appointees are going too far. Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch are both possible candidates for that kind of defection — especially Gorsuch, who did vote with Roberts and the liberals this year in a case involving workplace discrimination against homosexual and transgender employees.
But those coalitions could be more difficult for Roberts to forge going forward, particularly since his interests may be more aligned with the moderate liberals than with some of his fellow conservatives. This year, for example, he voted with Kagan about as often as he did with Alito, more often with Kagan than he did with Thomas and about as often with Breyer as he did with Thomas.
Roberts does retain one big, important power, though. As chief justice, he can assign who writes the opinion in any case where he’s in the majority. That might make for a change in strategy for him, however. Instead of trying to bridge the divide between the left and right, Roberts might side with his fellow conservatives more often, as it would enable him to claim the opinion in cases where he wants to rule as narrowly as possible.
Precedents could be in much greater danger
Even before Ginsburg’s death, the Roberts court was overturning precedents with more narrow 5-4 majorities than any other modern court in Supreme Court history — and those rulings usually went in a conservative direction.
Now, that seems likely to accelerate. And not just because the conservative majority may be open to overturning precedents. Lower courts, legal advocates, and state legislatures all calibrate their actions, at least to some extent, based on how far they think the Supreme Court is willing to go.
Some anti-abortion legal advocates, for example, have deliberately adopted a more incremental strategy up until now, in part because they thought it was unrealistic that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade outright. “That kind of incrementalist thinking will be out the window,” said Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court largely responds to the arguments that are brought to its doorstep, and at least one study has indicated that the justices may be more likely to overturn precedent when they’ve been asked to do so explicitly.
This kind of pressure outside the court is hard to measure and quantify — after all, there’s no way of knowing what kinds of laws or cases would end up at the Supreme Court if Ginsburg weren’t being replaced, most likely by a conservative. But it’s important to understand, nonetheless. Because even before Ginsburg’s death, there were signs that Trump’s previous nominations had emboldened conservative advocates to challenge precedents that used to seem untouchable, like a case this term which asks the court to reconsider a 1990 decision about religious exemptions written by former Justice Antonin Scalia, which many conservatives now regard as flawed because it allows the government to impose some restrictions on religious practices.
However, we might be surprised by where the court goes next or where fissures emerge among the GOP-appointed justices. The legal landscape is about to change dramatically, so while some in the conservative legal movement might be eager to prioritize and move forward quickly on particular issues, others might disagree.
Finally, all Trump’s nominees could turn out to be wildcards, at least some of the time — even Barrett. “The conservative legal movement may be very eager to get a certain person on the court, but once that person is there, they can do what they want and the Federalist Society can’t fire them,” Epstein said. “So we’ll just have to see what happens. When the center of the court moves right, will the justices feel like, ‘You know what, there’s nothing stopping us, we’re going to plow ahead’? That might very well happen. But they might also get a little cautious.”


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-28--A Majority Of Americans Say They Want To Know What Is In Trump’s Tax Returns. Now They Do.

A Majority Of Americans Say They Want To Know What Is In Trump ’ s Tax Returns .
Now They @ @


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-28--Politics Podcast: Trump’s Tax Returns Challenge His Successful Businessman Image

The New York Times reported on Sunday that President Trump paid $ 750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and @ @ @ @ @ tax in 10 of the previous 15 years due to reported business losses .
In @ @ @ @ @ Politics podcast , the crew weighs the potential political implications of the report .
They @ @ @ @ @ conservative majority on the Supreme Court would look like , given Judge Amy Coney Barrett @ @ @ @ @ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “ @ @ @ @ @ audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes , the ESPN App or your @ @ @ @ @ you are new to podcasts , learn how to listen .
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast @ @ @ @ @ .
Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on @ @ @ @ @ , question or suggestion for “ good polling vs. bad polling ” ?
Get in @ @ @ @ @ Twitter or in the comments .

The New York Times reported on Sunday that President Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 and no federal income tax in 10 of the previous 15 years due to reported business losses. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew weighs the potential political implications of the report. They also discuss what a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court would look like, given Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button in the audio player above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.
The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast is recorded Mondays and Thursdays. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.


fivethirthyeight--2020-09-28--What To Watch For In The Wildest MLB Playoffs Ever

It seemed like baseball might never get here , but MLB ’ s regular season came to an end on Sunday , and the playoffs are at hand .
And it ’ s going to get ridiculous : The postseason now has 16 teams — which should mean more chaos — and no home-field advantage for most of it , with neutral-site games in the division series through the World Series .
And the schedule for the wild-card round alone will be enough to overload us with baseball for the foreseeable future : Once the games start , the storylines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prediction model , here are the dominant themes as we head into one of the wildest postseasons ever .
Although the 16-team format served to dampen the World Series odds for top teams , that hasn ’ t stopped the Los Angeles Dodgers from looking like far and away the best team of 2020 .
We currently give L.A. a 33 percent chance of winning it all , which is the highest pre-playoff probability for any favorite since we launched our predictions in 2015 .
( In fact , they ’ re the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percent right now . )
It ’ s tough to choose just one area of strength to highlight for the Dodgers ; they rank among the top 10 in wins above replacement from batting , defense , starting pitching and relievers .
But their lineup is especially terrifying , led by six starters — Will Smith , Corey Seager , Mookie Betts , Justin Turner , Chris Taylor and AJ Pollock — with weighted runs created plus ( wRC+ ) rates of 130 or better .
( And that ’ s without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who both reached that level last season . )
The biggest question is whether L.A. can finally capitalize on its championship potential after one of the most successful multi-year runs ever by a team with no titles to show for it .
The only teams to win more regular-season games than the 2013-19 Dodgers in any-seven year span without a championship came from the latter half of the Atlanta Braves ’ 14-season division title streak and the post-2000 New York Yankees .
And remember : Even with this year ’ s Dodgers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still has a 67 percent chance of finding a way to thwart them yet again .
But on paper at least , they are big favorites .
The American League is more wide-open We knew the Dodgers were going to be dominant in the NL .
But in the AL , our two preseason favorites — the New York Yankees and the Houston Astros ( more on them later ) — did not exactly have incredible seasons , even though each did make the playoffs .
This left the door open for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s No .
1 seed , and for the Oakland Athletics , Minnesota Twins and Cleveland Indians to move up the ranks as well .
It also means there is no clear favorite in the AL postseason field .
The Rays have the best World Series odds ( 10 percent ) of any AL team — edging out the Yankees ( 8 percent ) — and Tampa Bay is playoff-ready in theory , as the only team that ranked among the top five in WAR both on defense and in the bullpen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best , with two other teams ( New York and Minnesota ) sitting within 3 percentage points of them in our pennant odds .
If the Rays falter , a credible case could be made for practically every other AL team to represent the league in the World Series — from the mega-talented Yankees , to the powerful Twins and the pitching-rich Indians , to the exceptionally deep and balanced A ’ s , and beyond .
Some teams among the bottom half of their league ’ s seeds — such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in good conscience , be considered “ Cinderellas.
” Others — like the surprising Miami Marlins — probably aren ’ t good enough to realistically make a World Series run .
But some lower seeds do have the potential to surprise .
In the AL , the Chicago White Sox ( 2 percent ) and Toronto Blue Jays ( 1 percent ) have nontrivial chances to win the World Series ; Chicago looks especially dangerous with its mix of hitting ( No .
7 in WAR ) , defense ( No .
7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 ) .
Over in the NL , it ’ s not hard to envision the Cincinnati Reds ( 3 percent ) , St. Louis Cardinals ( 2 percent ) or Milwaukee Brewers ( 2 percent ) giving top seeds trouble ; Cincy — led by Trevor Bauer and Luis Castillo — has the No .
3 rotation by WAR , while St. Louis has MLB ’ s best defense and Milwaukee ranked second in total pitching WAR behind only Cleveland .
It will be harder for the Reds , Cardinals and Brewers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dodgers in their way , but each at least has the potential to deliver an upset .
Nobody knows what to expect from the Astros The defending AL champs did not completely implode after the most tumultuous offseason in recent baseball memory .
But they weren ’ t the Astros we ’ ve been used to seeing , either .
Houston finished with a losing record ( 29-31 ) , and its performance fell off across the board — most notably on offense , where the Astros ’ wRC+ fell from No .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Fair or not , any decline for Houston hitters this season was going to be seen as a referendum on the usefulness of their rule-breaking in the past .
( That perception wasn ’ t helped by the fact that Jose Altuve and Alex Bregman , two of the central figures in the scandal fallout , each saw their wRC+ numbers fall by at least 45 points since last year . )
After down years by a few prominent batters and season-ending surgery for ace Justin Verlander , it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a third pennant in four seasons seriously .
But it ’ s also important to remember that 60 games is not a very large sample — which is why , according to Elo ratings ( which change only incrementally after each game of the season , in a way that our testing has determined is best for predicting future results ) , Houston remains one of the better teams in MLB … in theory .
( Hence , their 5 percent World Series probability , despite the mediocre record . )
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the postseason , however , remains to be seen .
2020 could be the year of the breakout team — or the team finally getting over the hump Two of the best storylines of this , um , unique MLB season have been breakouts for the Chicago White Sox and San Diego Padres , a couple of franchises that each ended playoff droughts of over a decade in 2020 .
These were not flukes , either — San Diego and Chicago finished the season ranked Nos .
2 and 4 in WAR , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ featuring either the Astros or Dodgers ( or both ) , there ’ s at least some chance we get an all-breakout matchup in the Fall Classic .
And if ever there was a season that needed it , it might be 2020 .
But if it ’ s not the White Sox or Padres , there are plenty of other top contenders who could finally get over the hump this year .
The Rays ( No .
3 in WAR ) might be looking at their best chance yet to reach the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Braves ( No .
5 ) are looking for redemption after last year ’ s NLDS debacle .
The Twins ( No .
6 ) have their own tortured postseason history to overcome .
The Athletics ( No .
7 ) have been trying to crack the postseason code for two decades now .
The Indians ( No .
8 ) haven ’ t won it all since 1948 .
And of course , even the Dodgers haven ’ t actually won the World Series since 1988 .
Whatever happens , these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give us a satisfying story at the end of a season that — for a long time — didn ’ t even seem like it might occur .
And what we see along the way could make for the most entertaining postseason in a long time .
Play ball !

It seemed like baseball might never get here, but MLB’s regular season came to an end on Sunday, and the playoffs are at hand. And it’s going to get ridiculous: The postseason now has 16 teams — which should mean more chaos — and no home-field advantage for most of it, with neutral-site games in the division series through the World Series. And the schedule for the wild-card round alone will be enough to overload us with baseball for the foreseeable future:
Once the games start, the storylines will abound. Looking at our MLB prediction model, here are the dominant themes as we head into one of the wildest postseasons ever.
The Dodgers are heavy favorites
Although the 16-team format served to dampen the World Series odds for top teams, that hasn’t stopped the Los Angeles Dodgers from looking like far and away the best team of 2020. We currently give L.A. a 33 percent chance of winning it all, which is the highest pre-playoff probability for any favorite since we launched our predictions in 2015. (In fact, they’re the only team with a championship probability over 10 percent right now.) It’s tough to choose just one area of strength to highlight for the Dodgers; they rank among the top 10 in wins above replacement from batting, defense, starting pitching and relievers. But their lineup is especially terrifying, led by six starters — Will Smith, Corey Seager, Mookie Betts, Justin Turner, Chris Taylor and AJ Pollock — with weighted runs created plus (wRC+) rates of 130 or better. (And that’s without even considering Cody Bellinger or Max Muncy, who both reached that level last season.)
The biggest question is whether L.A. can finally capitalize on its championship potential after one of the most successful multi-year runs ever by a team with no titles to show for it. The only teams to win more regular-season games than the 2013-19 Dodgers in any-seven year span without a championship came from the latter half of the Atlanta Braves’ 14-season division title streak and the post-2000 New York Yankees. And remember: Even with this year’s Dodgers’ relatively high odds, the field still has a 67 percent chance of finding a way to thwart them yet again. But on paper at least, they are big favorites.
The American League is more wide-open
We knew the Dodgers were going to be dominant in the NL. But in the AL, our two preseason favorites — the New York Yankees and the Houston Astros (more on them later) — did not exactly have incredible seasons, even though each did make the playoffs. This left the door open for the Tampa Bay Rays to secure the AL’s No. 1 seed, and for the Oakland Athletics, Minnesota Twins and Cleveland Indians to move up the ranks as well. It also means there is no clear favorite in the AL postseason field. The Rays have the best World Series odds (10 percent) of any AL team — edging out the Yankees (8 percent) — and Tampa Bay is playoff-ready in theory, as the only team that ranked among the top five in WAR both on defense and in the bullpen. Yet they are slim favorites at best, with two other teams (New York and Minnesota) sitting within 3 percentage points of them in our pennant odds. If the Rays falter, a credible case could be made for practically every other AL team to represent the league in the World Series — from the mega-talented Yankees, to the powerful Twins and the pitching-rich Indians, to the exceptionally deep and balanced A’s, and beyond.
The Cinderellas have a chance
Some teams among the bottom half of their league’s seeds — such as the Yankees and Astros — cannot, in good conscience, be considered “Cinderellas.” Others — like the surprising Miami Marlins — probably aren’t good enough to realistically make a World Series run. But some lower seeds do have the potential to surprise. In the AL, the Chicago White Sox (2 percent) and Toronto Blue Jays (1 percent) have nontrivial chances to win the World Series; Chicago looks especially dangerous with its mix of hitting (No. 7 in WAR), defense (No. 7) and relief pitching (No. 10). Over in the NL, it’s not hard to envision the Cincinnati Reds (3 percent), St. Louis Cardinals (2 percent) or Milwaukee Brewers (2 percent) giving top seeds trouble; Cincy — led by Trevor Bauer and Luis Castillo — has the No. 3 rotation by WAR, while St. Louis has MLB’s best defense and Milwaukee ranked second in total pitching WAR behind only Cleveland. It will be harder for the Reds, Cardinals and Brewers to make the World Series with the Dodgers in their way, but each at least has the potential to deliver an upset.
Nobody knows what to expect from the Astros
The defending AL champs did not completely implode after the most tumultuous offseason in recent baseball memory. But they weren’t the Astros we’ve been used to seeing, either. Houston finished with a losing record (29-31), and its performance fell off across the board — most notably on offense, where the Astros’ wRC+ fell from No. 1 in 2019 to just 17th this year. Fair or not, any decline for Houston hitters this season was going to be seen as a referendum on the usefulness of their rule-breaking in the past. (That perception wasn’t helped by the fact that Jose Altuve and Alex Bregman, two of the central figures in the scandal fallout, each saw their wRC+ numbers fall by at least 45 points since last year.)
After down years by a few prominent batters and season-ending surgery for ace Justin Verlander, it’s difficult to take the Astros’ bid for a third pennant in four seasons seriously. But it’s also important to remember that 60 games is not a very large sample — which is why, according to Elo ratings (which change only incrementally after each game of the season, in a way that our testing has determined is best for predicting future results), Houston remains one of the better teams in MLB … in theory. (Hence, their 5 percent World Series probability, despite the mediocre record.) Whether that talent will suddenly manifest itself in the postseason, however, remains to be seen.
2020 could be the year of the breakout team — or the team finally getting over the hump
Two of the best storylines of this, um, unique MLB season have been breakouts for the Chicago White Sox and San Diego Padres, a couple of franchises that each ended playoff droughts of over a decade in 2020. These were not flukes, either — San Diego and Chicago finished the season ranked Nos. 2 and 4 in WAR, respectively. After three straight World Series featuring either the Astros or Dodgers (or both), there’s at least some chance we get an all-breakout matchup in the Fall Classic. And if ever there was a season that needed it, it might be 2020.
But if it’s not the White Sox or Padres, there are plenty of other top contenders who could finally get over the hump this year. The Rays (No. 3 in WAR) might be looking at their best chance yet to reach the team’s second-ever World Series. The Braves (No. 5) are looking for redemption after last year’s NLDS debacle. The Twins (No. 6) have their own tortured postseason history to overcome. The Athletics (No. 7) have been trying to crack the postseason code for two decades now. The Indians (No. 8) haven’t won it all since 1948. And of course, even the Dodgers haven’t actually won the World Series since 1988.
Whatever happens, these playoffs have a very good chance to give us a satisfying story at the end of a season that — for a long time — didn’t even seem like it might occur. And what we see along the way could make for the most entertaining postseason in a long time. Play ball!
Check out our latest MLB predictions.