Slusher: Distinguishing between speculation and analysis
The oral arguments before the Illinois Supreme Court Wednesday open the door to a common, if not a favorite, journalistic pastime: lively speculation disguised as pointed analysis. We must acknowledge from the outset that when trying to predict the future based on one's interpretation of a handful of clues, the distinction between analysis and speculation is a fine one indeed. It certainly sounds more credible if we call it analysis, but the results? Well, they often in the end prove that political prognostication is fun, but tells more about the prognosticators than the subjects they address. As a news consumer, you are wise to keep that point in mind.
For starters regarding the current event, it is all but universally assumed that because the circuit court in Springfield declared in uncompromising language that legislation modifying Illinois teachers' pensions violates the state constitution, the Supreme Court is bound to follow suit and the pension reforms at the foundation of Illinois' future budget planning will soon be invalidated. Well, maybe so, but is it really all that simple?
Supporters of the law certainly hope not. Their legal teams presumably did not spend months preparing to take before the court an argument they assumed would be dead on arrival. And political proponents have been bending the ears of anyone who will listen to try to dispel the notion that the overturning of the law is a fait accompli. With Wednesday's oral arguments giving us the first opportunity to watch the high court's justices in action, perhaps it is only natural that observers in the press, in the legislature or all along the blogosphere will try to divine some deeper meaning from the furrowed brows, stifled yawns and pointed questions of the judges. Four of the seven are Democrats, and Democrats pushed the plan in the legislature. Will party allegiance tip the balance? Justice Mary Jane Theis has been a swing vote in the past; don't the questions she asks indicate the likely outcome?
It will be an entertaining parlor game. But remember, for the most part, it is just that. Not the actual decision, of course, nor the various serious legal debates that go into it. But once you've heard the basic arguments for both sides, there's not much more to be done for the weeks leading up to the court's actual decision than to try to fashion extraneous details into some vision of the future.
The Daily Herald's political editor Mike Riopell and I were sharing thoughts along these lines this week as we reflected on the activities leading up to Wednesday's oral arguments, and he pointed out how frequently - and frequently wrongly - national pundits interpret the questions of, in particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy as the signal for the likely direction of cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Mike's blunt, and I think sage, conclusion: "Interpreting what they're talking about (when they banter with lawyers) is just dangerous territory."
That, of course, is not likely to stop any of us, if the past is any indication. But it's still a good reminder that there's more to Supreme Court decisions than party affiliation, arched eyebrows or courtroom confrontations. There's also that little matter of the weight of the arguments themselves. If you're looking for the difference between speculation and analysis, I'd say to start there.
Jim Slusher, jslusher@dailyherald.com, is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald. Follow him on Facebook at facebook.com/jim.slusher1 and on Twitter at @JimSlusher.