Obama’s Batting .370 Before SCOTUS – Half The Success Rate Of His Predecessors


This year’s Supreme Court session hasn’t been kind to the Administration of President Barack Obama.

In an analysis of cases pleaded before the High Court between 1985 and 1997, Economics Professor Linda R. Cohen and Law Professor Matthew L. Spitzer found:

Studies of public litigation at the Supreme Court find that the government tends to prevail and that it is more successful than the petitioner or respondent…The pattern is striking: the government wins in over 70 percent of the cases where it is the petitioner, and it wins in just under 60 percent of the cases where it is the respondent.

The Obama Administration, however, can only dream of those kinds of numbers. The Daily Beast has pegged his batting average at .370 before SCOTUS over this year’s court session, which started last October and ended this week. Not so hot, especially when you consider how well other Presidents have fared.

Worse, though, is the disproportionate number of times the Supreme Court’s decisions against the President haven’t featured even a single dissenting opinion, as noted Wednesday in the Washington Times:

Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said it is striking to take into account the number of times the Obama administration has been on the losing end of unanimous decisions.

“When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees — Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it,” said Mr. Somin, adding that presidents from both parties have a tendency to make sweeping claims of federal power. “This is actually something that George W. Bush and Obama have in common.”

That observation corroborates one of the central features of bipartisan American politics: fundamentally, party politicians differ only over how most effectively to manipulate public opinion – and, it appears, judicial opinion – to their benefit. Obama has successfully gamed the public in consecutive Presidential elections. But he stinks at gaming his intellectual peers (or, perhaps, his superiors) on the bench who, like the President, hold J.D.s with specialization in Constitutional law.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Robbie

    I don’t know much about baseball batting averages but the decision on gay marriage is a major victory for America and for Obama. And as usual the right wing is out in left field (saying it in a way you baseball fans will understand).

    • Frank Kahn

      Actually, it is only a win for Obama and the queers. America is just fine with traditional marriage definitions.

      • Darrell

        ! Agree!!!

      • village idiot

        Amen to that Frank!

        • Robbie

          Actually the fact of the matter is that something like 65% of Americans agree that gays should have equal rights and protections under the law in keeping with traditional American values. Gay bashers are in the minority – and and ever smaller one at that. In any case “traditional” marriage does not work all that well anyway. Over 50% of “traditional” marriages end in divorce and often that involves a great deal of emotional and financial hardships to the couple and to children. Even when “traditional” marriages stay intact sexual infidelity runs rampant: mostly due to the male patronizing prostitutes or having extra marital activity. Ain’t it just lovely though? Does anyone agree?

          • Andy

            That 65% is pure hog wash and something pulled out of thin air by liberals. However, that being said, mating/marriage was decided LONG ago by the one who created us–just examine the “fittings”. I guess they will have to change male-to-female couplings, fittings, plugs, etc. to make allowances for our “gay” counterparts. You can justify it anyway you want to, the concept goes against the laws of nature. Yes, supposedly 50% of marriages fail; however, in the gay community relationships run the gamut much quicker. Also, in the male gay community, monogamy is practically unheard of (see your validation comment above on this). Do you think the emotional and financial hardships will be any different for “gay” couples and if you think the children have a hard time with their hetero-parents divorcing, what do you think will happen when it is now their “2 mommies” or “2 daddies”? You can justify anything to make yourself feel good, that doesn’t make it right or moral. Aren’t pedophiles just particpating in an act with their chosen “love” interest–is that to be condoned also, just because they are different, who are we to judge…oh, yeah, let’s bring on those good ole’ incestuous relationships too; after all, isn’t your argument that anyone should be able to choose the person they love and be with them regardless of laws or morality, right? Hey–let’s make murder legal too…after all, liberals believe in sucking and flushing out millions of unborn “inconvenient” children. I can see an utopia in the making already. Gimme a break…

    • bwtanker

      only in California,all they did was revert it back to the California courts decision.it is supposed to be the states judgement not the supreme court ,they decide the Interpretation of the Constitution not gay rights which is wrong anyway

  • Alan

    He cant scam the SJC the way he can scam the voting public. His unconstitutional power grabs are transparent. ( about the only thing transparent in this thug administration )