Sara has already discussed some of the papers from the MWPSA Meeting here. However, I was impressed by how the different perspectives of the two disciplines (law and political science) led to discussion of any number of interesting issues, some of which we (the law professor and the political scientists) lacked consensus on. Here's a sampling:
(1) Can every judicial vote be coded in terms of "liberal" or "conservative"? Takings cases? Economic cases? Copyright cases?... Is the conservative decision to protect private property or promote competition?
(2) What is the best way to determine if a case is "statutory" or "constitutional"? For example, is the decision about the jurisdictional scope of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulation of wetlands a Clean Water Act issue or a Constitutional Commerce Clause issue? See, e.g., SWANCC; Rapanos; Carabell. It's likely both, so how should we code the case or take this into consideration in any empirical analysis?
(3) What should we do with "unpublished" versus "published" opinions? When does the distinction matter? Do judges behave differently in writing unpublished opinions? One might say these opinions are more honest reflections of judicial interpretive philosophies because there is no need to cater to other audiences who won't cite the decision... but maybe the law clerk just wrote it. Though maybe the judge treats an unpublished opinion like all others because it is still very persuasive authority, and the decision not to publish was because the judge thought the topic wasn't that interesting or important. Maybe it depends on circuit rules on the citation of unpublished opinions.
If anything these questions and the conversations at MWPSA made clear to me that there are many points were the practice of law and legal training must meet social science methodologies. It is at these points where political scientists and law professors must step up their discourse and even consider engaging in co-authored work.