The nine Supreme Court justices base their decisions on their interpretation of both legal doctrine and the precedential application of laws in the past. In most cases, interpreting the law is relatively clear-cut and the justices decide unanimously; however, in more complicated or controversial cases, the Court is often divided.
In modern discourse, the justices of the Court are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. It has long been commonly assumed that justices' votes are a reflection of their judicial decision-making philosophy as well as their ideological leanings, personal attitudes, values, political philosophies, or policy preferences. A growing body of academic research has confirmed this understanding, as scholars have found that the justices largely vote in consonance with their perceived values.[1][2][3] Analysts have used a variety of methods to deduce the specific perspective of each justice.
Partisan balance
The simplest way to approximate the ideological leanings of Supreme Court justices is by the political party of the president who appointed them. In a 2000 paper, Segal, Timpone, and Howard found that, in their study area (civil liberties and economics cases from 1937 to 1994), presidents appear to be reasonably successful in extending their policy preferences by appointing like-minded justices to the court, though they found that justices appear to deviate over time away from the presidents who appointed them.[4] In 1999, Pinello conducted a meta-analysis of 84 studies of American courts covering 222,789 cases adjudicated since World War II and found that political party affiliation was a dependable indicator of rulings: Democratic judges voted in favor of liberal solutions more often than Republican judges did, especially in federal courts (the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and U.S. District Courts).[5]
The graph below (using data from List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) shows the number of justices sitting in the Supreme Court who were appointed by Democratic or Republican presidents since 1936. In 1936, the Court had 7 justices appointed by Republican presidents and 2 appointed by Democratic presidents. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt then filled the Supreme Court with 9 appointees in the late 1930s and 40s (including promoting Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone, who had originally been appointed to the Court by Republican President Calvin Coolidge). Then Democratic President Harry S. Truman appointed 4 justices. In the 1950s, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower reversed the balance by appointing 5 justices to the court.
In the 1960s, Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, appointed 2 justices each, flipping the balance back to a majority of Democratic-appointed justices. This was reversed by Republican President Richard Nixon who appointed 4 justices, followed by Republican Presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush appointing a total of 7 more justices. (Democratic President Jimmy Carter was not able to appoint any justices in his single term). In succession, Democratic President Bill Clinton, Republican President George W. Bush, and then Democratic President Barack Obama each appointed 2 justices. Since 2020, with the appointment of 3 justices by Republican President Donald Trump, the Court has 6 justices appointed by Republican presidents. Democratic President Joe Biden has appointed 1 justice, but that appointment did not change the partisan balance. In every term since 1970, the Court majority (consisting of at least 5 of the justices) has been appointed by Republican presidents. Every chief justice since 1953 has also been appointed by Republican presidents.
Devins and Baum point out that before 2010, the Court never had clear ideological blocs that fell perfectly along party lines. In choosing their appointments, Presidents often focused more on friendship and political connections than on ideology. Republican presidents sometimes appointed liberals and Democratic presidents sometimes appointed conservatives. As a result, "... between 1790 and early 2010 there were only two decisions that the Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court designated as important and that had at least two dissenting votes in which the Justices divided along party lines, about one-half of one percent."[6]: 316 [7] Even in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, Democratic and Republican elites tended to agree on some major issues, especially concerning civil rights and civil liberties—and so did the justices. But since 1991, ideology has been much more important in choosing justices—all Republican appointees have been committed conservatives and all Democratic appointees have been liberals.[6]: 331–344 As the more moderate Republican justices retired, the court has become more partisan. The Court is now divided sharply along partisan lines with justices appointed by Republican presidents taking increasingly conservative positions and those appointed by Democrats taking moderate liberal positions.[6]: 357
Measuring ideological leanings
To further discern the justices' ideological leanings, researchers have carefully analyzed the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court—the votes and written opinions of the justices—as well as their upbringing, their political party affiliation, their speeches, their political contributions before appointment, editorials written about them at the time of their Senate confirmation, the political climate in which they are appointed, confirmed, and work, and the political contributions of the law clerks they hire. Bonica and Sen provide an extensive overview of these methods.[8]
From this data, scholars have inferred the ideological leanings of each justice and how the justices are likely to vote on upcoming cases. For example, Segal and Cover found a strong correlation (r=0.80) between justices' perceived ideological perspectives on civil liberties and civil rights issues as attributed to them in elite newspaper editorials written just before their confirmation (their Segal–Cover score) and their later votes in the study period 1953–1988.[9]: 561 [10] Epstein, Walker, and Dixon found they could explain and predict rulings in criminal justice cases (in the study period 1946–1986) using a simple model with four inputs: the political party affiliation of the majority of justices, the political party affiliation of the current president (representing the current political climate), the Supreme Court rulings in criminal justice cases in the previous year, and the percent of criminal cases the Court decides to hear in the current year (how much interest they take in the issue). In this analysis, the political party affiliation of the majority of justices provided about one-fourth of the predictive power.[11] Bonica et al. utilized the ideology of the law clerks hired by federal judges (as estimated by the law clerks' political donations) to estimate the ideology of the judges themselves.[12]
Using statistical analysis of Supreme Court votes, scholars found that an inferred value representing a justice's ideological preference on a simple conservative–liberal scale is sufficient to predict a large number of that justice's votes. For example, Grofman and Brazill performed multidimensional scaling (MDS) using SYSTAT 5.0 of the entire range of cases considered by the Supreme Court, 1953–1991. Analyzing terms with an unchanging membership ("natural courts") and a complete bench of nine members (3,363 cases), they found that a one-dimensional scale provided a satisfactory explanation of votes and that the degree of unidimensionality generally rose over the years, writing: "On average, over the 15 courts, the mean r2 values are 0.86 for a one dimensional metric MDS solution, and 0.97 for a two dimensional metric MDS solution."[13] In 2003, Poole used various statistical measures to show that a unidimensional scale provided a good measure of the Rehnquist Court during the 8-year period 1995–2002.[14]
Ideological leanings over time
Using increasingly sophisticated statistical analysis, researchers have found that the policy preferences of many justices shift over time.[15][16][17] The ideological leanings of justices and the drift over time can be seen clearly in the research results of two sets of scholars using somewhat different models:
Andrew D. Martin and Kevin M. Quinn have employed Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to fit a Bayesian statistic measurement model[18] of ideal points (policy preferences on a one-dimensional scale) for all the justices based on the votes in every contested Supreme Court case since 1937.[19][20][21][22] The graph below shows the results of their analysis: the ideological leaning of each justice from the term that began in October 1937 to the term that began in October 2022.[23] Note that the scale and zero point are strongly dependent on the particular set of cases chosen to be reviewed by the Court each year; the relative distance between the lines for each justice is most informative. Each unique color represents a particular Supreme Court seat. The black lines represent the leanings of the chief justices. The yellow line represents the estimated location of the median justice—who, as Duncan Black's median voter theorem posits, is often the swing vote in closely divided decisions.[24]
Michael A. Bailey used a slightly different Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian method to determine ideological leanings and made significantly different scaling assumptions.[25][26][27] He analyzed cases by calendar year (rather than Supreme Court term) and supplemented the data regarding votes in each Court case with additional information from the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in which justices commented on previous cases, as well as with votes made by members of Congress on similar legislation, amicus filings by U.S. solicitors general and members of Congress, and presidential and Congressional positions on Court cases. This additional information gave him a richer dataset and also enabled him to deduce preference values that are more consistent with the DW-Nominate Common Space scores used to evaluate the ideological leanings of members of Congress and presidents.[28] However, he only used votes and cases related to the major topics addressed by the courts in the postwar era: crime, civil rights, free speech, religion, abortion, privacy, and labor unions. He did not include cases addressing federalism, judicial power, economic activity, or federal taxation.[25][29]
The graph below shows the ideological leaning of each justice by calendar year from 1950 to 2019.[30][25] The scale and zero point roughly correspond to DW-Nominate Common Space scores. As in the graph above, each unique color represents a particular Supreme Court seat. The black lines represent the leanings of the chief justices, and the yellow line represents the median justice.
These two graphs differ because of the choices of data sources, data coverage, coding of complicated cases, smoothing parameters, and statistical methods. Each of the lines in these graphs also has a wide band of uncertainty. Because these analyses are based on statistics and probability, it is important not to over-interpret the results.[31][32] Also note that the nature of the cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear and which questions they choose to address may lead the justices to appear more liberal or conservative than they would if they were hearing a different set of cases and chose to answer a different set of questions; the Court accepts only 100–200 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.[33][34][35] In addition, all cases are valued equally even though some cases are much more important than others.[36][37] Moreover, recent consequential cases decided through the "shadow docket" are not included at all.[38] Still, these graphs offer an indication of the overall ideological orientation of the justices and provide a visualization of changes in the Court's orientation over time.
The Martin–Quinn graph shows that, by the 1939 term, Roosevelt had moved the Court to a more liberal position by appointing four new justices including strong liberals Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Frank Murphy. Led by the increasingly conservative chief justices Harlan F. Stone and Fred M. Vinson, the Court shifted in a more conservative direction through the early 1950s.[citation needed]
The most volatile seat appears to be Seat 10 (light blue lines), which was held by conservative Pierce Butler until 1939, then liberal Frank Murphy until 1949, then moderate-conservative Tom Clark until 1967, then strong liberal Thurgood Marshall until 1991, and then strong conservative Clarence Thomas. The path of Justice Harry Blackmun illustrates the ideological drift shown by many justices.[15] Blackmun (purple line) had a conservative score (Quinn–Martin = 1.459; Bailey = 1.289) in the 1969–70 term, his first on the bench, but had shifted to a liberal score (Quinn–Martin = −1.940; Bailey = −1.188) by the 1993–94 term, his last. The median justice (shown with a yellow background line) was Byron White (orange line) for most of the time from 1969 to 1989, Sandra Day O’Connor (dark brown line) from 1999 to 2005, Anthony Kennedy (green line) from 2006 to 2017, John Roberts (black line) in 2018 and 2019, and, perhaps, both Brett Kavanaugh (green line) and John Roberts since 2020.[43]
The graphs show that since the 1938 term every chief justice (black lines), except Earl Warren and John Roberts (since about 2020), has had a more conservative ideological lean than the median justice on the Court.
Career liberal voting percentage by issue area from 1946–2017
The following sortable table[a] lists the lifetime percentage liberal scores of Supreme Court justices as compiled in the Supreme Court Database.[44][45] The table shows data for justices whose service began at or after the 1946 term; the data ends with the 2016–2017 term.
In the Supreme Court Database, liberal represents the voting direction of the justices across the various issue areas. It is most appropriate in the areas of criminal procedure, civil rights, and First Amendment cases, where it signifies pro-defendant votes in criminal procedure cases, pro-women, or pro-minorities in civil rights cases, and pro-individual against the government in First Amendment cases. In takings clause cases, a pro-government/anti-owner vote is considered liberal. In labor union cases, pro-union votes against both individuals and the government are considered liberal, and in economic cases, the term represents pro-government votes against challenges to federal regulatory authority and pro-competition, anti-business, pro-liability, pro-injured person, and pro-bankruptcy decisions. In federalism and federal taxation cases, the term indicates pro-national government positions.
No. (justice number) – order that Supreme Court justice was appointed
Justice – justice's name
Year confirmed – year confirmed to the Supreme Court
Position – Chief Justice or Associate Justice
Criminal procedure – a higher number means pro-defendant votes in cases involving the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners.
Civil rights – a higher number means more votes permitting intervention on freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including Native Americans), age, indigence, voting, residence, military, or handicapped status, sex, or alienage.
First Amendment – a higher number reflects votes that advocate individual freedoms with regard to speech.
Union – a higher number means pro-union votes in cases involving labor activity.
Economic – a higher number means more votes against commercial business activity, plus litigation involving injured persons or things, employee actions concerning employers, zoning regulations, and governmental regulation of corruption other than that involving campaign spending.
Federalism – a higher number means votes for a larger, more empowered government in conflicts between the federal and state governments, excluding those between state and federal courts, and those involving the priority of federal fiscal claims.
Federal taxes – a higher number means more votes widening the government's ability to define and enforce tax concepts and policies in cases involving the Internal Revenue Code and related statues.
Note: A highlighted row indicates that the Justice is currently serving on the Court.
^To sort, click on the arrow in the header. To sort by multiple columns, click on the first column's sort arrow, then shift-click on subsequent columns' sort arrows.
^ abWilliam Rehnquist's terms as associate justice and chief justice are listed separately.
^Percentages for Neil Gorsuch may be misleading since he had participated in only a few cases through 2017.
^
Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0521783514.
^
Epstein, Lee; Martin, Andrew D. (2012). "Is the Roberts Court Especially Activist? A Study of Invalidating (and Upholding) Federal, State, and Local Laws"(PDF). Emory Law Journal. 61: 737–758. Archived from the original(PDF) on October 9, 2012. Retrieved December 10, 2012. …for Justices appointed since 1952, Epstein & Landes's findings parallel ours: the vast majority were opportunistic restraintists (activists), willing to uphold laws that were consistent with their policy preferences and strike those that were not.
^Segal, Jeffrey A.; Timpone, Richard J.; Howard, Robert M. (2000). "Buyer Beware? Presidential Success through Supreme Court Appointments". Political Research Quarterly. 53 (3): 557–573. doi:10.1177/106591290005300306. S2CID153646562.
^Poole, Keith (July 10, 2003). "The Unidimensional Supreme Court". Retrieved November 27, 2012. The bottom line is that the current Court is basically unidimensional.
^Bailey, Michael A.; Maltzman, Forrest (2011). The constrained court: law, politics, and the decisions justices make. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0691151052.
^Epstein, Lee; Martin, Andrew D.; Segal, Jeffrey A.; Westerland, Chad (May 2007). "The Judicial Common Space"(PDF). Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 23 (2): 303–325. doi:10.1093/jleo/ewm024. hdl:10.1093/jleo/ewm024. Archived from the original(PDF) on October 8, 2010. Retrieved December 10, 2012. The [Nominate] Common Spaces scores are bounded below by −1 and above by 1, whereas the Martin–Quinn scores are theoretically unbounded (currently, they range from about –6 [Justice Douglas] to 4 [Justice Thomas]).
^"The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload". United States Supreme Court. Retrieved September 12, 2021. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review.
^
Johnson, Benjamin B. (2022). "The origins of Supreme Court question selection"(PDF). Columbia Law Review. 122 (3): 793–864. The modern Court has effectively abandoned the traditional judicial role of deciding cases in favor of targeting preselected questions. This arrangement may serve the Court's institutional interests, but it also pulls the Court into politics.
^Farnsworth, Ward (September 2007). "The Use and Limits of Martin–Quinn Scores to Assess Supreme Court Justices, with Special Attention to the Problem of Ideological Drift". Northwestern University Law Review. 101 (4): 1891–1903. SSRN1000986.
^Epstein, Lee; Landes, William M.; Posner, Richard A. (2013). "How Business Fares in the Supreme Court"(PDF). Minnesota Law Review. 97: 1431–1472. We find that five of the ten Justices who, over the span of our study (the 1946 through 2011 Terms), have been the most favorable to business are currently serving, with two of them ranking at the very top among the thirty-six Justices in our study.
^Epstein, Lee; Walker, Thomas G.; Staudt, Nancy; Hendrickson, Scott; Roberts, Jason (November 1, 2017). "The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database". Archived from the original on November 18, 2017. Retrieved April 3, 2024.
^Spaeth, Harold J.; Epstein, Lee; Martin, Andrew D.; Segal, Jeffrey A.; Ruger, Theodore J.; Benesh, Sara C. "2023 Supreme Court Database". 2023 Release 01. Retrieved April 3, 2024.
Взаимоотношение клиновидной пазухи и полости носа. Клиновидная (основная) пазуха (лат. sinus sphenoidalis) — околоносовая пазуха, расположенная в теле клиновидной кости. Наряду с задними ячейками решетчатого лабиринта, клиновидная пазуха относится к задним околоносовым паз…
KPresenter TipeAplikasi presentasi dan perangkat lunak bebas Versi pertamaJuni 2005 (2005-06)Versi stabil 3.2.1 (14 Mei 2020) LisensiGNU Lesser General Public License v3BahasaDaftar bahasa 99+ bahasa Bagian dariCalligra Suite dan KDE Gear (en) Karakteristik teknisSistem operasiWindows, LinuxBahasa pemrogramanC++ Format kodeOpen Document Format Format berkasOpen Document Format Antarmuka BibliotecaQt Informasi pengembangPengembangKDE komunitasInformasi tambahanSitus webhttp://www.koffice.org…
Majelis Kesehatan Dunia bertemu di balai majelis Istana Bangsa-Bangsa, Jenewa (Swiss). Majelis Kesehatan Dunia (World Health Assembly, WHA) adalah forum di mana Organisasi Kesehatan Dunia (World Health Organization, WHO) menaungi 194 negara anggotanya. Ini adalah badan pengatur kebijakan kesehatan tertinggi dunia dan terdiri dari para mentri kesehatan dari negara-negara anggotanya. Para anggota Majelis Kesehatan Dunia biasanya bertemu setiap tahun pada bulan Mei di Jenewa, tempat markas besar WH…
Artikel ini bukan mengenai Hentai. Bagian dari seri tentangAnime dan manga Anime Sejarah Industri Animasi net orisinal Animasi video orisinal Fansub Fandub Perusahaan Seri terpanjang Daftar Manga Sejarah Pasar internasional Mangaka Dōjinshi Scanlation Alternatif Gekiga Yonkoma Penerbit Seri terlaris Seri terpanjang Daftar Kelompok demografi Anak-anak Dewasa Shōnen Shōjo Seinen Josei Genre Bara (manga gay) Harem Isekai Mahō shōjo Mecha Ryona Yaoi Yuri Lainnya Tokoh Mitsuru Adachi Fujio Akats…
Alexander Stephan Alexander Stephan 2007Informasi pribadiTanggal lahir 15 September 1986 (umur 37)Tempat lahir Erlangen, Jerman BaratTinggi 1,89 m (6 ft 2+1⁄2 in)Posisi bermain Penjaga gawangInformasi klubKlub saat ini 1. FC NürnbergNomor 30Karier junior0000–1996 ASV Niederndorf1996–2005 1. FC NürnbergKarier senior*Tahun Tim Tampil (Gol)2005– 1. FC Nürnberg II 96 (0)2006– 1. FC Nürnberg 14 (0)Total 110 (0)Tim nasional2004 Jerman U-19 1 (0) * Penampilan dan g…
هذه المقالة بحاجة لصندوق معلومات. فضلًا ساعد في تحسين هذه المقالة بإضافة صندوق معلومات مخصص إليها. هذه المقالة يتيمة إذ تصل إليها مقالات أخرى قليلة جدًا. فضلًا، ساعد بإضافة وصلة إليها في مقالات متعلقة بها. (مايو 2018) قالب:AFC submission رسم توضيحي يبين العلاقات بين مختلف انواع التقني…
Artikel ini bukan mengenai Yehezkel. Untuk kitab Alkitab, lihat Kitab Yehezkiel. Untuk tokoh ini dalam sudut pandang Islam, lihat Hazqiyal. Untuk kegunaan lain, lihat Yehezkiel (disambiguasi). YehezkielYehezkiel, lukisan Michelangelo pada Langit-langit Kapel SistineLahir622 SMYerusalemMeninggalsetelah 571 SMmungkin di BabiloniaAnakTidak diketahuiOrang tuaBusi Yehezkiel (Ibrani: y'khezqe'l, יְחֶזְקֵאל, Allah menguatkan)[1] adalah salah satu nabi Yahudi yang bernubuat pada masa p…
Radio station in Waunakee–Madison, Wisconsin For the Hershey, Pennsylvania, radio station that held this call sign from 2005 to 2012, see WWKL (FM). WMHXWaunakee, WisconsinBroadcast areaMadison metropolitan areaFrequency105.1 MHzBrandingMix 105.1ProgrammingLanguage(s)EnglishFormatHot adult contemporaryAffiliationsCompass Media NetworksUnited Stations Radio NetworksWestwood OneOwnershipOwnerAudacy, Inc.(Audacy License, LLC, as Debtor-in-Possession)Sister stationsWMMM-FMWOLX-FMHistoryFirst air d…
Penari Bujang Ganong, bagian dari Reog Ponorogo. Topeng Bujang Ganong dari depan. Bujang Ganong (Ganongan) (aksara Jawa: ꦧꦸꦗꦁꦒꦤꦺꦴꦁ) atau Patih Pujangga Anom[1] adalah penari dalam kesenian Reog Ponorogo yang menggambarkan sosok patih muda (patihnya Klono Sewandono) yang cekatan, cerdik, jenaka, dan sakti. Sosok ini bagian dari Reog Ponorogo dan digambarkan dengan topeng yang mirip dengan wajah raksasa, hidung panjang, mata melotot, mulut terbuka dengan gigi yang besar/a…
French footballer (born 1990) Rémy Cabella Cabella with Krasnodar in 2021Personal informationFull name Rémy Cabella[1]Date of birth (1990-03-08) 8 March 1990 (age 34)[2]Place of birth Ajaccio, FranceHeight 1.71 m (5 ft 7 in)[3]Position(s) Attacking midfielderTeam informationCurrent team LilleNumber 10Youth career2000–2004 Gazélec Ajaccio2004–2009 MontpellierSenior career*Years Team Apps (Gls)2009–2014 Montpellier 97 (24)2010–2011 → Arles-A…
Television channel TVR CraiovaCountryRomaniaBroadcast areaArgeș, Dâmbovița, Dolj, Gorj, Mehedinți, Olt, Vâlcea, TeleormanProgrammingPicture format16:9OwnershipOwnerTeleviziunea RomânăHistoryLaunched16 May 1996LinksWebsitehttp://tvr-craiova.roAvailabilityTerrestrialTeleviziunea Românăthe same frequency as TVR 2 TVR Craiova is one of the six regional branches of Societatea Română de Televiziune (Romanian Television).[1] It was established on May 16, 1996, and began broadcasting …
Main article: 1980 United States presidential election 1980 United States presidential election in North Carolina ← 1976 November 4, 1980 1984 → Nominee Ronald Reagan Jimmy Carter Party Republican Democratic Home state California Georgia Running mate George H.W Bush Walter Mondale Electoral vote 13 0 Popular vote 915,018 875,635 Percentage 49.30% 47.18% County results Congressional district results Reagan 40-50% 50-60% …
KhakasТадарларJumlah populasi80,000 (perk.)Daerah dengan populasi signifikanRussia (terutama Khakassia) Rusia Khakassia72,959[1] Ukraina162[2] Tiongkok (Heilongjiang)sekitar 1500BahasaKhakas, RusiaAgamaSebagian besar Ortodoks Rusia)juga Syamanisme Suku Kakas (Khakas: Тадарлар, Tadarlar) adalah salah satu kelompok etnik di Rusia yang berasal dari rumpun Turk. Suku Khakas sebagian besar tinggal di Khakassia, sebuah republik di Rusia yang terleta…
ماريشال الدولة الفرنسية ميشيل نيي (بالفرنسية: Michel Ney) نيي بريشة فرانسوا جيرار ماريشال الدولة الفرنسية ألقاب « le Brave des braves » « Le Lion rouge » « Le Rougeaud » معلومات شخصية الميلاد 10 كانون الثاني 1769سارلوي، امانيا الوفاة 7 كانون الأول 1815باريس فرنسا عن 46 عامًا سبب الوفاة…
Bahasa Igbo Ásụ̀sụ́ Ìgbò Pengucapan[ìɡ͡bò]Dituturkan diNigeriaWilayahAbia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, Delta, Rivers[1]EtnisIgboPenutur31.000.000 juta (2020)[1] Rincian data penutur Jumlah penutur beserta (jika ada) metode pengambilan, jenis, tanggal, dan tempat.[2] 27.000.000 (2019, Bahasa ibu) Rumpun bahasaNiger–Kongo Atlantik–KongoVolta–KongoVolta–NigerIgboidIgboid IntiIgbo Bentuk bakuBahasa Igbo Baku[3] DialekIsu, Aguata…
Kapisa کاپیساProvinsiLokasi di AfganistanNegaraAfghanistanIbu kotaMahmud-i-RaqiLuas • Total1.842,1 km2 (7,112 sq mi)Populasi (2015)[1] • Total441.010 • Kepadatan24/km2 (62/sq mi)Zona waktuUTC+4:30Kode ISO 3166AF-KAPBahasa utamaPashtun, Dari, Pashayi Kapisa (Pashtun/Persia: کاپيسا) adalah salah satu dari tiga puluh empat provinsi di Afganistan. Provinsi ini terletak di timur laut negeri itu dan beribu kota di Mahmud-…