Predicting Court Outcomes through Political Preferences: The Japanese Supreme Court and the Chaos of 1993

Empirical students of the U.S. courts successfully explain some court decisions through the party of the executive or legislature that appointed the judge. Others (including some judges) find these studies offensive. In taking offense, they miss a crucial implication: appointment politics predict judicial outcomes only when courts are independent. Japanese Supreme Court justices enjoy an independence similar to that of their American peers, but their lower-court colleagues do not. Although the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has governed Japan for most of the post-war period, it temporarily lost power in the mid-1990s. Elsewhere, Eric Rasmusen and I ask whether this non-LDP hiatus changed the administration of the lower courts. Here, I ask whether the non-LDP prime ministers appointed Supreme Court justices with different policy preferences than their LDP predecessors. I find that they did not.


INTRODUCTION
In universities, scholars try hard to understand why judges decide cases the way they do.In the United States, we find that (in some subsets of cases) we can predict the way federal judges decide cases through proxies for their political preferences.Most obviously, precisely because of the fundamental independence of the federal courts.Were courts not independent of sitting politicians, judges could not costlessly indulge their political biases.And if they could not indulge them at low cost, they would not indulge them often.That they act politically in political cases simply reflects their essential independence from incumbent politicians.
I hesitate to stress the point more strongly.One thoughtful reader of an earlier draft described the point as "old hat."All sensible legal scholars know this, he assured me.I take his point.Rather than push the point further, I simply use it to ask how aggressively leftist Japanese politicians tried to assert control over the courts during their time in power in the mid-1990s.
Unlike their lower-court colleagues, 9 Japanese Supreme Court justices enjoy politically independent careers.Once appointed, they serve until age seventy-and effectively face no incentives tied to their incomes, wealth, or careers. 10Accordingly, I use their opinions to explore the way Japanese politicians try (or do not try) to assert control over the courts.
For this exercise, I turn to the few short years in the mid-1990s when three reformist prime ministers briefly broke the hold of what had been the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).To ask whether these three tried to transform the courts, I ask whether the justices they appointed wrote different opinions from LDP appointees.Because politicians primarily control the Japanese lower courts

DUKE LAW JOURNAL
[Vol.58:1557 through the supreme court, 11 a premier who hoped to change the courts would have stacked the supreme court with justices who shared his reformist instincts.Those instincts, in turn, would have reflected a different set of policy preferences from those of the LDP appointees.Given the institutional independence of the supreme court, those different policy preferences would have been observable in the opinions the justices wrote.Were they?I begin by discussing the ties between career incentives and judicial independence (Part I).I explain Japanese court structure (Parts II and III), and the political turmoil of 1993 (Part IV).I conclude by testing whether the LDP and reformist justices wrote different opinions (Part V).

A. Within Markets
Few scholars would try to use ideological or political variables to predict the way corporate CEOs run their businesses.It is not that CEOs do not hold strong preferences.Like most humans, they hold preferences over a wide range of issues.And like most, they bring these preferences to their jobs.
Nonetheless, scholars seldom try to use ideological or political preferences to explain the way CEOs do their jobs.Even when CEOs hold such preferences over precise issues a business faces, scholars ignore them.They ignore them because they do not matter: the preferences do not explain much that CEOs do.
The reason is simple-CEOs operate under market constraints.There are exceptions, to be sure.Environmentalist executives may locate politically congenial careers in "green" technologies.Leftist financiers may market "social choice" mutual funds.Religiously driven managers may run church nonprofits.
Yet within most industries, market competition prevents executives from much indulging their ideological and political biases.Ultimately, CEOs run their firms within the confines of capital, labor, and service and product markets.If they choose a strategy for ideological rather than economic reasons, they risk losing customers.
Left on their own, they risk running their firm out of business.Fundamentally, incumbent CEOs do not maximize economic returns because they "believe" in those returns more strongly than they believe in ideology or politics.They maximize economic returns because competitive markets weed them out if they do anything else.

B. Within Institutions
Scholars find politics similarly irrelevant within tightly run organizations.Even in organizations insulated from economic markets, scholars may find employee political preferences mostly beside the point.Take a think tank owned by Party A. A maintains the institute to promote its own policies.It does not want its research staff using it to promote the policies of rival Party B.
Given this environment, institute employees who championed anything other than Party A policies would find themselves at a dead end.In general, the institute would not promote them as rapidly as their peers.It would not pay them as generously.Should they complete a study that recommended Party B policies, it would tend not to publish it.Whatever private preferences these employees might hold, their published work will tend to endorse A's policies.Even scholars who knew the employees' private preferences would seldom find them relevant.
Crucial to this equilibrium is Party A's power potentially to intervene in internal institute affairs.
12 A will actually intervene in matters only occasionally, and only when it needs to demonstrate its power and control.For as long as A can intervene, it will not need actually to do so.Rather than risk A's punishment, incumbent employees will promote A's positions on their own.Incumbent employees would likely not hire an outspoken Party B follower who applies for work.Knowing that A had the power to intervene in personnel matters, few B partisans would bother applying for the job anyway.They realize the institute will tend not to promote them, not to pay them well, and not to publish the studies they write.Rather than apply to the institute, they will opt for more gratifying work elsewhere.

C. Within Courts
1. Independence.Political preferences explain judicial decisions in the U.S. federal courts precisely because-by Constitution, by statute, and by custom-politicians have insulated them from the usual "high-powered" incentives that CEOs and think-tank employees face.Federal judges can decide cases as they please, and suffer no ill effect.Suppose they write an opinion that displeases the president or the Chief Justice or the attorney general or the Speaker of the House.They will not earn a lower salary.They will not miss a promotion, 13 or find their opinions denied publication.Their court is even less likely to go out of business.Precisely because politicians do not punish a judge for indulging private preferences, 14 a scholar can sometimes use those preferences to predict how a judge will decide.
2. Dependence.By contrast, suppose a powerful politician (say, the prime minister in a parliamentary government) controlled the courts more closely.Suppose he hired subordinates to monitor the way judges behave.Suppose he controlled resources (like pay scale assignments) that judges valued.And suppose he used the control to promote personal political preferences.
Within this judicial environment, scholars could seldom predict judicial behavior through judicial preferences.In this environment, heterodox judges who indulged their private preferences would find their careers stalled.They might not be appointed to prestigious posts.They might find their salaries frozen.They might not see their opinions published.Realizing the potential cost of heterodoxy, most such judges would keep their preferences to themselves.And contemplating a life of enforced compliance, many more heterodox jurists would opt for life in the private bar instead.
As a result, a judge's political preferences will help predict judicial decisions only when politicians keep the courts independent 13.U.S. judges, however, are not indifferent to the possibility of being appointed to a more prestigious court.See, e.g., Mark A. Cohen, Explaining Judicial Behavior or What's "Unconstitutional" About the Sentencing Commission?, 7 J.L. ECON.& ORG.183, 193 (1991)  (finding evidence "consistent with the hypothesis that judges are more likely to follow the Administration's wishes when facing the prospect of a promotion to an appeals court position").
14.For a discussion of why U.S. politicians find it advantageous to do so, see of themselves.Should politicians do so, a judge will find it relatively costless to decide cases according to private preferences.In the routine business of court decisionmaking, he will seldom focus on those preferences.After all, few judges hold heterodox beliefs (whatever those might be) about traffic accident or consumer debt claims.In the unusual but politically newsworthy cases of constitutional moment, however, judges may indeed disagree with each other about how to decide a case.Those disagreements, in turn, will track their private political preferences.
Hence the moral: where politicians keep the courts independent, court outcomes will tend to track private judicial preferences; where politicians do not do so, those private preferences simply will not matter.

A. The Incentives
Remarkably closely, this account of the Party A think tank captures the internal dynamics of the Japanese lower courts.For most of the past half-century, the courts recruited their lower-court judges from (what was until recently) the sole national law school, the Legal Research & Training Institute (LRTI).In a typical year, they hired seventy to one hundred new judges. 16These men and women (in 1998, 81 percent were still men) 17 then served a series of renewable ten-year terms.The courts almost always renewed those terms, 18 and most judges quit a few years before the mandatory retirement age of sixtyfive.
During their careers, lower-court judges moved from post to post and city to city, usually at three-year intervals.
20 Some posts carried more prestige than others.Among the most coveted were those with administrative power: chief judgeships, for example, or positions in the judicial administrative headquarters known as the Supreme Court Secretariat.
21 Among the least desirable were the branch offices and family courts.

22
Similarly, some cities offered more appeal than others.Like other professionals, most Japanese judges preferred to live in the urban centers. 23There, they found the best preparatory schools for their children and the greatest amenities for themselves. 24Among those centers, most judges preferred Tokyo, if not Tokyo then Osaka, and if not Osaka then one of the regional centers.
25 Should a Tokyo judge find himself posted to a small town, he typically left his family in Tokyo.

26
He moved there alone, and then prayed for a reassignment to Tokyo three years hence.
And some judges earned more than others, even more than others of the same age.Granted, Article 80 of the Constitution declares that "judges of the inferior courts shall receive . . .adequate compensation which shall not be decreased." 27But to protect against pay cuts is one thing.To guarantee uniform increases is quite another.Subject to minor qualifications, all U.S. federal judges on the courts of appeals earn the same pay.As life-long employees, Japanese judges do not.They start their careers at low pay. 28If they climb the pay scale rapidly they will in time earn attractive salaries, but the Constitution does not guarantee a rapid climb.By controlling the pace at which they climb the scale, the courts can use the highest of the high-powered incentives to control the way their judges behave. 29These judges too hold standard lower-court appointments and serve in the Secretariat for the standard three-year term-but the Secretariat is not a standard post.Instead, it is among the fairest posts of them all.Judges named to the Secretariat are judges in a hurry.Typically, they will move in and out of the most coveted Tokyo and Osaka jobs, rotate through a series of increasingly prestigious appointments, and cap their careers as a district court chief judge or high (that is, intermediate appellate) court president (that is, chief judge).30 At the Secretariat, judges decide the personnel questions that determine their colleagues' careers.In doing so, they answer to the Secretariat's own Secretary General.The Secretary General too is a career judge, typically in his fifties.After running the Secretariat for several years, he will be named President of the Tokyo or Osaka High Court (there are seven high courts, but these presidencies are the most avidly desired).Often, he will then be appointed a justice to the supreme court itself.
The secretary general answers to the supreme court chief justice.Put conversely, the chief justice monitors the secretary general; the secretary general supervises the judges staffing the Secretariat; and the Secretariat judges make the decisions that determine the fate of their peers in the lower courts.31 2. Political Ties.The ruling LDP does indeed control the Japanese lower courts.Formally, it controls the courts indirectlymostly through its power to appoint the fifteen supreme court justices, including the administratively crucial chief justice. 32The LDP controls the cabinet, after all, and the cabinet selects the fifteen justices to the court. 33To avoid the "Harry Blackmun problem," it names its justices late in their lives.Appoint a forty-five-year-old justice, after all, and risk ongoing changes in political beliefs several times before retirement (though Justice Blackmun himself was over Through the Diet, the LDP can also constrain the ability of the judges to make law.Japan maintains a parliamentary system of government.For much of the postwar period, Japanese voters elected enough legislators from the LDP for the party to field cabinets without a coalition. 35If heterodox judges tried to shape the case law, the party stood ready to reverse them through legislation. 36Even were higher courts not to overturn the judges' opinions on appeal (and usually they would), the legislature could vitiate their prospective impacts by statute.

C. Quality and Quantity
1. Quality Control.With this control, the LDP does not primarily manipulate the political complexion of judicial opinions.After all, most opinions have no serious political complexion to manipulate.Instead, the LDP offers voters high quality.It routes the rare politically loaded disputes out of the courts, and (through the Secretariat) induces the courts to handle the remaining "ordinary" cases expeditiously, intelligently, honestly, and consistently.37 Japanese judges resolve most cases with dispatch.Despite having many fewer judges per capita than the United States, the Japanese courts decide cases at the pace of the high-quality federal courts in the United States. 38According to court insiders, the Secretariat maintains this pace by collecting docket-clearance rates on all judges and using them to reward and punish.Unfortunately, the rates are not public.The (plausibly correlated) rates at which judges write published opinions are indeed public, however, and judges who write more publishable opinions per year do find themselves appointed to the better posts.39   Second, Japanese judges decide like cases similarly.Probably, the Secretariat rewards its judges for following precedent.After all, Japanese courts are nothing if not predictable.Curiously, however, judges who publish opinions that are reversed on appeal do not visibly suffer in their careers. 40In fact, though, the case reporters print only a small minority of decisions, 41 and perhaps a judge who writes publishable opinions that are reversed on appeal is still producing higher-quality output than a judge who publishes nothing at all.
In any event, Japanese courts work hard to maintain consistency across opinions.The Secretariat occasionally operates workshops on frequently litigated legal issues.And, by way of example, Daniel Foote has nicely documented how judges deliberately engineered consistency to the booming traffic-accident litigation in the 1970s.qualities that enable students to score high on exams, in other words, also enable them as judges to handle cases quickly and accurately.And the judges who succeeded most prominently as students tend to succeed most prominently in the courts.
First, the judges who attended the schools with the most selective entrance examinations enjoy the most successful careers.They begin at the most coveted courts.Throughout their career, they spend more time in prestigious assignments, and more time in the desirable cities.They climb the pay scale more rapidly.And they are more likely to conclude their careers with an appointment to a Chief Judgeship.

43
The private market generates an analogous result.Provided they practice in Tokyo, attorneys from the University of Tokyo earn the highest incomes.The university has long maintained the most restrictive entrance exam.Given the prestige of the courts, a high fraction of judges have traditionally come from the University of Tokyo.
44 And just as University of Tokyo graduates on the bench tend to do better than their colleagues, University of Tokyo lawyers in the competitive private market in Tokyo tend to earn higher incomes than their counterparts from other universities.45   Second, the judges who passed the LRTI entrance exam most quickly have the most successful careers.During most of the past half-century, the passage rate on the exam hovered in the 1-3 percent range. 46Most exam takers never passed, and the average lawyer finally passed it only after first failing six or seven times. 47Consistent again with the high prestige of the courts, the average judge passed it more quickly than the average lawyer: the average judge failed it "only" three to five times. 48But among the judges, those who failed it fewer times started at the best courts, spent more time in prestigious posts, spent more time in desirable cities, climbed the pay scale more rapidly, and more likely ended their careers as chief judges.
49 Again, the private market generates an analogous result.Whether in Tokyo or the smaller cities, the lawyers who passed the exam most quickly report the highest incomes later in their careers.50 Passing exams requires intelligence and hard work, and those qualities are ones that employers and clients value.Whether on the market or in the courts, the smartest and hardest-working jurists enjoy the most successful careers.

A. Structure
Institutional control over Japanese lower courts may improve quality, but it also involves political motivations.The Secretariat does not just manipulate incentives to promote speed and accuracy.It also manipulates them to promote LDP policy.And precisely because the LDP-through the Secretariat-controls crucial incentives within the lower courts, scholars will find it hard to use the political preferences of individual lower-court judges to predict their decisions.
Again, the controls are indirect.The LDP can appoint to the supreme court justices who share its political philosophy.Through that Chief Justice, it can monitor and control the Secretary General of the Secretariat.Through the secretary general, it can set the standards by which the Secretariat staff (judges all) reward and punish individual lower court judges.Through those standards, it can structure a judiciary in which the loyal do well and the heterodox suffer.Through its control over the Diet, it can reverse by statute any case law that a renegade judge might try to make.And because it can do all this, the heterodox will tend to avoid careers in the courts.For a card-carrying Marxist, a career in the Japanese courts is just not a whole lot of fun.
In short, in Japanese lower courts, neither judicial output nor expressed judicial preferences will show much political variation.The case law will reflect LDP policies.The sitting judges will express LDP policies publicly.And most of those judges will even hold LDP policies privately.Regress the case law on potential indices of judicial The potential for partisan or other political intervention motivates the judges assigned to judicial administration to be more vigilant than perhaps they might otherwise be to ensure that the judiciary enjoys the highest levels of public trust.Thus acceptability of judges to politicians has to be viewed in relation to the similar accountability of politicians to the public. . . .Individual judges thus function within the shadow of potential political intrusion.They cannot help but be aware that in adjudicating highly publicized, politically sensitive cases, they can be held professionally accountable for their decisions.

51
He then concludes, "Judges themselves, however, exercise the oversight, not politicians directly or indirectly." 52In effect, Professor Haley describes "indirect" but straightforward-and potentially extremely effective-political oversight.

B. Enforcement
It was not always so.The current U.S.-imposed (formally Alliedimposed) Constitution took effect on May 3, 1947 under conservative Shigeru Yoshida's first cabinet.Fielding a coalition government, Socialist Tetsu Katayama replaced him a few days later, and held power for about ten months.In August of that year, he appointed the first fifteen justices to the court.53 Back in power in March 1948, Yoshida did not immediately focus on the courts.He had other worries: inflation ran over 50 percent; the Americans had bombed the economy back to the 1930s; his conservative allies stood in disgrace; Allied occupiers were executing the military elite and planning massively to purge the political and business elite; the Americans intended to demand draconian 51.Haley reparations and liquidate the 500 biggest Japanese firms. 54With crises like these, few prime ministers would have worried about enforcing any orthodoxy in the courts.
Yet with the conservative government probably mandating only haphazard conformity, some jurists on the fringe left found the courts an attractive career.From the 1950s through the mid-1960s, a steady stream of jurists from the Communist-affiliated Young Jurists League (YJL) joined the courts.By 1968, about 12 percent of the incoming judges were YJL members. 55Only as the LDP extended its hold into the courts did leftist jurists begin to find them uncongenial.
In time, the YJL judges would suffer career penalties.As the LDP strengthened its control over personnel matters, Professor Eric Rasmusen and I find that the YJL judges began to be posted to inferior positions.Talent and effort held constant, they found themselves named to less prestigious positions, and sent to less attractive cities.

56
When these politically heterodox judges tried to express their personal preferences in their work, they suffered.Granted, they seldom had reason to express those preferences.Most litigation involved no political issues of moment.But over the politically most sensitive disputes, the judges did have reason to indulge their politics.And when they wrote opinions that deviated from the position held by the LDP leadership, they suffered in their careers.For example, Professor Rasmusen and I find penalties in the careers of judges who Disproportionately, these judges spent more time during the decade after writing the opinion in undesirable positions, and less time in more attractive ones.

IV. 1993
A. Change 61 It was the worst of times-at least for the LDP.After dominating politics for nearly four decades, the LDP entered the 1990s with a wide range of problems.To pay for its lavish pork-barrel projects, it had enacted a sales tax that alienated a broad swath of voters.Under U.S. pressure, it had imposed trade and investment controls that threatened key constituents.With the end of the Cold War, it had lost any urgency to its anticommunist agenda.As rural families migrated to the cities, it found its agricultural base increasingly irrelevant.When its famously relaxed approach to matters financial generated a series of bribery scandals, it lost key leaders.And as the country spiraled into recession, it could no longer even promise prosperity.
Within this crisis, in 1993 old rivals decided to settle scores.Onetime LDP prime-ministerial candidate Ichiro Ozawa engineered a noconfidence vote, quit the party, and organized a new organization around his old-time protégés.In the election that followed, he and his allies did well, while the rump LDP lost badly.The party's rivals regrouped around Ozawa and another renegade LDP, politician Morihiro Hosokawa, and threw it out of power.Championing a reformist agenda, Hosokawa took control.Ozawa remained the kingpin, however, and even as Prime Minister Hosokawa never escaped his influence.Within months, his coalition unraveled.His successor (ex-LDP politician Tsutomu Hata) lasted barely two months.
In this chaos, the Socialists struck a deal with the LDP.Their leader, Tomiichi Murayama, became prime minister-the first Socialist to do so since Katayama.Murayama governed through a coalition that included the LDP, however, and even this arrangement quickly disintegrated.He implemented little of the Socialist agenda, and by 1996 the LDP was back in power.It has controlled the Cabinet ever since.
Cabinets thus followed the following stages: (a) the LDP controlled the government from 1955 through July 1993; (b) Hosokawa, Hata, and Murayama followed in quick succession; and (c) the LDP returned to power in January 1996.At the supreme court: (a) Hosokawa appointed four justices; (b) Hata appointed none; and (c) Murayama appointed five justices.

B. The Lower Courts
Elsewhere, Professor Rasmusen and I explore the effect of the 1993-96 turmoil on the lower courts.We find little to report.On the one hand, the courts retained their bias against leftist judges.
62 Some of the YJL judges from the 1960s, for example, still served in the courts.During the decades leading up to 1993, they endured career penalties.Relative to their more conservative colleagues, they languished in less prestigious posts in less desirable cities.
Much as the Hosokawa-Murayama cabinets mighthypothetically-have tried to abolish this anti-leftist penalty, the bias survived the 1993 crisis.Had the reformists intervened in judicial personnel matters (or had the courts anticipated their intervention), the courts might have changed their relative treatment of YJL and non-YJL judges.They did not: indices of industry and intelligence held constant, after 1993 YJL judges continued to languish in less attractive posts.63 62. Ramseyer & Rasmusen, Case for Managed Judges, supra note 9, at 1922-25.63.On the other hand, the post-1993 courts may have found it marginally harder to retain and recruit the most talented jurists.If incumbent judges believed that nothing had changed in the wake of 1993, then (economic circumstances held constant) the courts should not have found it harder to retain them.If potential applicants believed that nothing had changed, then [Vol.58:1557

A. The Issue
The anti-leftist bias in the lower courts survived the 1990s.Apparently, the reformists did not successfully transform the courts.But did they try?
Had the reformists wanted to change the lower courts, in part they would have worked through the supreme court.They would have found it hard.Although the cabinet controls the lower courts, it primarily (not exclusively) controls them through its power to appoint the supreme court associate justices (who police the case law through their power to reverse) and the chief justice (who supervises the secretary general).Not until September 1995 had the reformers named a majority to the court.And not until November 1995 had they named a chief justice.By January 1996, the LDP was back in power.

64
Perhaps, however, the reformists never seriously attempted to reform the courts.The lower courts would have changed radically only if the reformists had appointed transformative justices to the supreme court.Did they?
Because supreme court justices serve until mandatory retirement at age seventy, they face few (if any) of the incentives that structure lower court careers.Once elected-to put it most bluntly-they are independent.Because of that independence, any political differences among them could appear in their opinions (as is the case in the U.S. federal courts).To test whether Hosokawa and Murayama tried to transform the lower courts, I thus ask whether the justices they appointed wrote different opinions from their predecessors.In Section B, I first outline the work and composition of the court.
65 I then examine the opinions that the justices actually wrote, 66 and the voting patterns they exhibited.67 the courts should not have found it harder to recruit talent.Yet some evidence-weak to be sure-suggests that after 1993 the courts did find it harder to retain and recruit the most talented jurists.Apparently, conservative jurists saw too great a risk that reformist politicians might begin to restructure the courts to stay.Their leftist peers saw too small a chance to apply.

B. Introduction
Consider, first, some preliminary background.
1. Workload.a. Panels.By statute, the Japanese Supreme Court hears most appeals in one of three five-justice panels.When a dispute raises the constitutionality of a statute or regulation, the court handles it en banc. 68When it concerns only legal (rather than constitutional) issues, the court handles it on one of the three panels.
Such may be what the law requires, but the Japanese Supreme Court actually hears almost no cases en banc. 69In 1990, it published no en banc opinions at all.In 1995 it filed two and in 2000 one.70   Whatever the statutory pretext, the Japanese Supreme Court disposes of nearly all its cases through its five-justice panels.
b. Discretionary Appeals.By the terms of the Civil Procedure Code, the supreme court's work should have fallen dramatically in 1998.Until that year, the court heard all appeals-it exercised no certiorari-like discretion to decline a case. 71Since 1998, it can refuse to hear cases that raise merely legal-rather than constitutionalissues. 72 Only constitutional cases can it refuse to decline, and the data on en banc decisions suggest such constitutional cases simply do not exist.
But if such is what the law implies, such is not what common sense demands.Before 1998, the court may not have had the discretion to dismiss an appeal, but it could (and often did, I have been assured in casual conversation) simply opine, "Affirmed for reasons given by the court below."After 1998 the court may have the discretion not to hear an appeal, but it must (if it hopes to exercise that discretion intelligently) still review an appeal to decide whether it wants to dismiss it.Pre-or post-1998, the amount of work involved in deciding whether to write a serious opinion should have remained 68.Saibansho ho [Court Act], Law No. 59 of 1947, art.10. 69.I take the number of opinions from a search of the Hanrei Taikei database.The database compiles the opinions published in all major private and public case reporters.It remains theoretically possible that the Court published other en banc opinions that no reporter bothered to compile.Given that most en banc Supreme Court opinions would be among the most newsworthy opinions in courts, this is highly unlikely.
70.And indeed, the number of cases in which the court writes a serious opinion has stayed approximately constant.From 1990 to 1995, litigants increased the number of appeals they filed by about 20 percent.From 1995 to 2000, they increased it by over 50 percent.
Despite the fact that the court had new legal authority to refuse their appeals, they filed half again as many appeals.73 3. Age at Appointment.Had the reformists hoped to extend their influence in the courts beyond their expected tenure, they would have appointed young justices.American Presidents do this routinely, of course.John Roberts Jr. was fifty when appointed in 2005; Samuel Alito was fifty-five when appointed in 2006.Even Socialist Katayama in 1947 appointed some justices as young as fifty-three (the mean age was fifty-nine).79 Hosokawa and Murayama did not do this.Hosokawa appointed his four at a mean age of 63.0 (range 61-66), and Murayama his five at 62.2 (range 60-64). 80Given that supreme court justices face mandatory retirement at age seventy, all Hosokawa-Murayama appointees were gone by 2005.
4. University Background.University background says nothing about politics.Among University of Tokyo alumni, reformist prime ministers could have chosen either capitalists or communists.The University of Tokyo regularly sends its graduates to the bureaucracy and the exchange-listed corporate ranks.But it counts many Marxists among its faculty and alumni as well-even the chair (as of late 2008) of the Japan Communist Party Central Committee, Kazuo Shii.
In any event, Hosokawa and Murayama continued the meritocratic emphasis of their predecessors.Hosokawa chose all of his justices from the University of Tokyo.Of the four appointees on whom university background is public, Murayama took one from the University of Tokyo and two from its close competitor, the University of Kyoto.

C. Opinions Published
In Panel B of Table 2, I ask whether the reformist-appointed justices wrote different opinions than their LDP-appointed colleagues did.Again, I take the thirty-seven justices named between 1983 and 1995: twenty-eight were appointed by LDP prime ministers, four by Hosokawa, and five by Murayama.Because of their greater administrative workload, I exclude the two chief justices.For each justice, I examine the opinions they published during his first three years on the bench.In Column (1), I regress the number of dissents individual justices published against the cabinet that appointed them (the omitted category is appointment by Hosokawa or Murayama).I add additional variables for their professional backgrounds (the omitted category is judge) and the total number of decisions in which they participated.
If the reformist-appointed justices decided cases differently than their LDP colleagues, they should have written more dissents (after all, they were in the minority during the first post-1993 years).They did not: the coefficient on LDP appointment is insignificantly different from 0. In a second set of regressions, I use as dependent variable the percentage (rather than number) of dissents a justice wrote (among his total output).The coefficient on LDP remains insignificant: reformist-appointed justices did not dissent more often than their predecessors.
The LDP justices would have dominated the court most strongly during the first years of the Hosokawa administration.After all, they constituted the largest block during those early years.In other regressions (not reported), I disaggregate the Hosokawa and Murayama justices, and ask whether the former were most likely to dissent.They were not.
In Column (2), I regress the number of concurrences (and percentage of concurrences) against a justice's appointing cabinet.Again, the coefficient on LDP appointment is insignificant: the reformist appointees did not write more concurrences than the LDP appointees.
The private case reporters print opinions their publishers find newsworthy, while the official reporters print opinions selected by Secretariat staff.During the reformist cabinets, lower-court judges hired during the LDP years still controlled the Secretariat.Suppose reformist-appointed justices wrote opinions that flouted LDP preferences.If they did, the major private reporters would have found them newsworthy, while the official reporters would have hesitated to grant them their imprimatur.
In Column (3) I take as my dependent variable the number of opinions published in at least one of the two principal private reporters (Hanrei taimuzu or Hanrei jiho) but not in any of the official reporters.I then regress this count against the party that appointed the justice.Curiously, the coefficient on LDP-appointment is significantly positive: the LDP appointed justices were more likely than their reformist colleagues to have opinions published by the major private but not official reporters.
In Column (4), I regress the number of opinions published in an official reporter against the party that appointed the justice.The coefficient on the justice's appointing party is insignificant: LDPappointed justices were no more likely than their reformist colleagues to obtain the imprimatur of official publication.

D. Voting Alignments
If the reformist-appointed justices brought a distinctive policy perspective to their work, they should have tended to vote as a block.Disproportionately, they should have voted with each other and against their LDP-appointed colleagues.
To explore this hypothesis, in Table 3 I take all twelve en banc opinions published between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2002 that included a dissenting or concurring opinion.As Panel A shows, both the LDP and the "reform" blocks of justices routinely split their votes.In general, a justice appointed by Hosokawa or Murayama seems as likely to have voted with the LDP justices as with the other Hosokawa-Murayama appointees.
In Panel B, I report the correlation coefficients (and p-values) for a given justice's vote and the percentage of other LDP-appointed or reform-appointed justices voting in the same direction. 82According to Panel B.1, any given LDP justice's vote may be more strongly correlated with the votes of the reformist-appointed justices than with the other LDP appointees.According to Panel B.2, the correlation coefficients between any reformist-appointee's vote and the percentage of LDP-appointees and reform-appointees voting in the same direction are indistinguishable.82.For example, the correlation coefficient between a given LDP appointee's vote for the majority and the percentage of other LDP justices who voted for the majority was -.04 (p value = .7).The correlation coefficient between his vote for the dissent and the percentage of other LDP justices who voted for the dissent is -.05 (p value = .6).The discrepancy between the two correlation matrices comes from the fact that the percentages are of the other LDP justices, not all LDP justices.A concurrence is counted as a vote for the majority.

1.
Introduction.The reformist-appointed justices did not write more dissents.They did not write opinions that the commercial press found unusually newsworthy.They did not write opinions that make them on their own.After all, in most of these cases they split their votes within both the LDP and the reformist blocks.Just as legislative vote trading most often occurs within political parties, 87 one might expect vote trading on the court to occur among ideological compatriots.At least in the en banc cases of the Japanese Supreme Court, however, that apparently does not occur: if justices swap votes, they swap them individually.4. Bland Cases.Bear in mind that Japanese courts do not handle as politically charged a set of disputes as the courts in the United States.Japanese courts have not been as receptive to "innovative" claims as some American courts, and-as a result-litigants have not been as eager to bring them. 88This is endogenous to the character of the judges.As long as the LDP appointed the justices and they in turn managed the lower courts, politically inclined disputants justifiably saw the courts as unreceptive. 89Once Hosokawa and Murayama began appointing justices, however, they might have begun to consider bringing more of the claims we see in the United States.
For the voting patterns in Table 3, however, all this is as irrelevant as it is true.The cases in Table 3 are not a random sample of cases.Instead, they are the cases heard en banc.By definition, they are the politically most highly charged disputes of all: cases in which one of the parties challenged the constitutionality of a statute or regulation.Judicial hostility to political litigation may help explain why the court hears so few disputes en banc.It does not explain why the justices voted as they did in the few cases they did hear en banc. 5. Tenuous Hold.Fundamentally, however, perhaps Hosokawa and Murayama never tried to change the character of the courts.As a LDP politician who had only recently quit the party, Hosokawa did not hold radically different policy preferences from his predecessors.Neither did the other politicians in his coalition.As a Socialist, 87.E.g., Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, Patterns of Congressional Voting, 35 AM.J. POL.SCI.228, 265 (1991) (observing that the "maintenance of party coalitions apparently puts considerable constraint on the extent of internal party dissent").
88.As Professor John Haley put it, "the justices have tended to defer to the political branches of government and the political process rather than craft constitutional mandates themselves."JOHN OWEN HALEY, THE SPIRIT OF JAPANESE LAW 178 (1998).
89.In the LDP years, a "political" claim would tend to have been brought by an opposition litigant, if only because LDP supporters would have been more likely to enact their policy preferences in the Diet.Opposition supporters litigated because they found their legislative options foreclosed.
Murayama did hold other preferences, but he governed through a coalition that included the LDP. 90Within this coalition, he negotiated from a fundamentally weak position.In the July 1993 lower house election, the LDP had captured 223 of the 511 seats.His Socialists had taken only seventy.91 Whatever the reason, Hosokawa and Murayama apparently put judicial change on low priority.Murayama probably lacked the power to push through change without jeopardizing other aspects of his program; Hosokawa may not even have wanted to change the courts.Both premiers apparently focused their attention elsewhere.They could not solidly have altered the courts except through supreme court appointments.But they had not finally appointed a majority of the justices until September 1995, and had not appointed the administratively crucial Chief Justice until November 1995. 92Two months later, the LDP re-took control.
Given what Hosokawa and Murayama did (that is, given what they did not do), it stands to reason that the lower courts would not have changed.Given the tenuous reformist hold on government, jurists interested in radical change would have hesitated to join the courts.The government could not credibly have assured them a stable career, even had it tried.For the same reason, sitting judges with reformist preferences would have hesitated to shift their behavior toward reformist positions.The LDP could return, after all-as it soon did.The resurgent conservatives in the courts could then punish them in their careers, and the conservatives in the Diet would reverse their case law by statute.
And even had Murayama hoped to change policy fundamentally, perhaps he would not have worked through the courts anyway.Rather than manipulate the courts, perhaps he tried to implement the 91.See GORDON, supra note 90, at 323 (explaining that the Socialists considered forming a coalition with the LDP as "a last best chance to share power").
92.On the tenure of the justices, see ZEN SAIBANKAN KEIREKI SORAN, supra note 16, at 357.Of course, the appointment of the chief justice himself was not indispensable.A prime minister intent on controlling the lower courts could privately assure a sitting Secretary General that he (the Secretary General) would be appointed to the supreme court on the next vacancy if but only if he administered the Secretariat in ways that implemented the prime minister's political agenda.[Vol.58:1557   Socialist agenda by statute.Perhaps he tried to shift the large bureaucratic apparatus (stacked with three decades of LDP appointees).And within the bureaucracy, perhaps he focused on those ministries most central to his Socialist reform. 93Among the ministries, the Ministry of Justice was most closely tied to the courts.Apparently, however, it was not a ministry about which he much cared.Over the course of his short tenure, he cycled three men through the minister of justice slot.All three were LDP politicians.94 More basically, perhaps Hosokawa and Murayama thought they could shift the equilibrium in the lower court from political control to political independence.Suppose, for instance, that they thought they had ushered in an era of alternating political control.After all, writes historian Andrew Gordon, "in 1993, most observers predicted movement toward a two-party system.They expected a coherent rival to the LDP would emerge." 95If so, perhaps the two dominant parties could choose mutually to keep their hands off the courts as a way of minimizing their losses while out of power. 96And in Japan, keeping their hands off the lower courts would necessarily entail a nonpolitical approach to supreme court appointments.

97
In the United States, though the Democrat and Republican governments politicize the judicial appointments process, they do keep sitting federal judges independent of themselves.By keeping the courts mutually independent, they reduce the political cost of electoral defeat.Because they expect to lose elections from time to 93.Consistent with that principle, he did save the Cabinet Secretariat, the Management & Coordination Agency, the Ministry of Labor, and the Ministry of Health & Welfare for Socialist politicians.Beyond those posts, though, he seems mostly to have focused on pork.At various times, he assigned Socialist politicians to the post office, the Ministry of Construction, and the Ministry of Land and Infrastructure.
94. Shigeto Nagano, the first justice minister, began his political career as a member of the LDP in the House of Councillors.See Profiles of Coalition Cabinet Ministers; Justice Minister: Shigeto Nagano, DAILY YOMIURI, Apr. 29, 1994, at 4. His successor, Tomoharu Tazawa, was a LDP member and the chairman of the upper house Rules and Administration Committee of the House of Councillors.See Profiles of Ministers in New Murayama Cabinet, DAILY YOMIURI, Aug. 9, 1995, at 5. Similarly, Tazawa's successor, Hiroshi Miyazawa was a LDP House of Councillor member.See Tazawa Resigns as Justice Minister; Miyazawa Appointed as Successor, DAILY YOMIURI, Oct. 10, 1995, at 1. 95. GORDON, supra note 90, at 323. 96.See GINSBURG, supra note 14, at 21-33; Hanssen, supra note 14, at 712; Ramseyer, supra note 14, at 741-42.
97.In the United States, the parties can politicize judicial appointments while still keeping the judicial administration politically independent.In Japan, the internal structure of the courts makes that distinction much harder to make.time, they find the hands-off-the-courts strategy mutually beneficial.By contrast, the Japanese LDP had not kept the lower courts independent-but neither had it expected to lose power.If Hosokawa and Murayama thought that Japanese parties would begin to alternate in power, 98 perhaps they hoped to shift the equilibrium in the lower courts from nonindependence to independence.Toward that end, perhaps they deliberately kept their hands off the courts.If this was in fact their calculation, they were wrong ex post-but that fact does not itself render the strategy necessarily irrational ex ante.

CONCLUSION
Japanese Supreme Court justices enjoy an institutional independence that their lower-court brethren lack.Lower-court judges work within a career structure that rewards them for following the political preferences of the long-time ruling LDP.That LDP briefly lost power in the mid-1990s, but for the lower-court judges little changed.
Had the reformist premiers who temporarily replaced the LDP in the 1990s hoped to change the courts, they would have begun with the appointments to the supreme court.As the LDP-appointed justices retired, they would have named jurists who shared their reformist instincts.Precisely because of the institutional independence of the court, those changed appointments would have generated changed opinions: the new justices with reformist policy preferences would have written opinions different from those of their LDP predecessors.
Yet the reformist-appointed justices did not write different opinions.They did not write more dissents.They did not write more newsworthy decisions.They did not write opinions that antagonized Secretariat editors.And they did not vote as a block.Apparently, the reformist premiers did not appoint justices with different political preferences from their predecessors.98. See GORDON, supra note 90, at 323.

90.
See ANDREW GORDON, A MODERN HISTORY OF JAPAN: FROM TOKUGAWA TIMES TO THE PRESENT 323-24 (2d ed.2009).Murayama abandoned two long-time Socialist positionsopposition to the Self-Defense Force and the defense treaty with the United Statesimmediately upon taking office.See Haruhiro Fukui & Shigeko N. Fukai, Japan in 1996: Between Hope and Uncertainty, 37 ASIA SURVEY 20, 26 (1997).
Administrative Ties.Decisions about which judge to post in which position to which city at what pay grade are controlled by the judges in the Secretariat.

Table 1 .
See infra Table 1, Panel A: Opinions Published by the Supreme Court.unchanged.And pre-or post-1998, the amount of work in actually writing the opinion about the disputes it does treat seriously should have remained unchanged as well.Selected Summary Statistics 71. Minji sosho ho [Code of Civil Procedure], Law No. 29 of 1890, art.394.72.MINSOHÚ, art.312(a), 317(b), 318.roughly

Table 2 .
Opinions by LDP and Reformist Justices: All Panels Notes: The regressions include the 37 justices appointed between 1983 and 1995 other than the two Chief Justices (who have greater administrative responsibilities).For eachJustice, I include all opinions published during his or her first three years on the bench."OfficialReporter"figuresincludeall opinions published in any official reporter.Sources: See Table1.73.See infraTable 1, Panel B: Appeals Filed with the Court.

Table 3 .
Opinions by LDP and Reformist Justices: En Banc Panels