Posted on 07/20/2005 7:33:31 AM PDT by Babu
After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.
So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the supreme court. big deal; so has Larry fFynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote?
Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?
Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.”
It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter.
The only way a supreme court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial birth one.
It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:
“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 Term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.”
This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran saying, "hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job."
And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last president Bush about David Hackett Souter.
I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative."
From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit:
“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.”
I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his resume?
Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend the Party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism too.
Finally, lets ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural.
By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.
It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart.
If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.
Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.
If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!
We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections — seven of the last ten!
We're the Harlem Globetrotters now - why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week?
Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot.
Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views.
As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights –liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination.
During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight.
Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times — the enemy’s own playbook! — that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points.
That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year.
The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over.
And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground – substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives.
Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.
What I think is happening, to be more precise, is that they're deferring rulings where O'Connor would be the fifth vote.
Although Brown v. Sanders is an exception to that.
I totally agree with your assessment of Ann Coulter. She is a flame-thrower, but she throws the flames in the wrong direction: at the Right instead of the Left.
I share your disillusionment with her loss of judgment on this matter.
Central Va. Community College v. Katz
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined.
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and O’CONNOR, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, J., joined.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Dolan v. Postal Service
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Oregon v. Guzek
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
So! After 24 signed rulings, 22 of which count for our purposes (remember two were previously excluded due to recusals), the deviations are as follows.
In Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Scalia while Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
In Dolan v. Postal Service, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Kennedy while Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
In Oregon v. Guzek, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Kennedy while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in judgment that was joined by Thomas.
So, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 95.45%
Roberts/Thomas: 81.82%
After 22 rulings.
And, just for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 86.36%
Roberts/Souter: 86.36%
And, for the record, encompassing all 17 signed rulings in which both Roberts and O'Connor participated:
Roberts/O'Connor: 88.24%
Next installment to post soon after 30 signed rulings!
Interesting that O'Conner in these cases agreed with Scalia more than Thomas agrees with Scalia.
Thank you for the analysis. Very interesting.
Since it is the title of this thread, perhaps you should include the Souter/Roberts percentage.
Not quite. In the 16 cases where all three participated, Thomas & Scalia disagreed once whereas O'Connor and Scalia disagreed twice. Thomas' lone dissents came after O'Connor left the Court.
I did! 86.36%.
Sure thing! It'll become more meaningful as a lot more controversial rulings come down the pike. There's been an unusual degree of unanimity thus far (compared to recent years). I'll keep posting roughly every ten rulings until the end of the session (probably between 60-70 signed rulings altogether). Would you like me to ping you along as well?
That would be great. Thank you!
I sure hope Ann is wrong. If Bush picked another Souter, he will go down as a big spender, who was great in the war, but certainly not a conservative
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
United States v. Grubbs
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Georgia v. Randolph
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., and BREYER, J., filed concurring opinions. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. SCALIA, J., and THOMAS, J., filed dissenting opinions. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Day v. McDonough
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion dissenting from the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Jones v. Flowers
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Hartman v. Moore
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
So! After 35 signed rulings, 32 count for our purposes; two were previously excluded due to recusals and, of the above, Hartman v. Moore is also excluded due to a Roberts recusal. Besides that, the deviations are as follows:
In Georgia v. Randolph, Roberts filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Scalia. Thomas filed a separate dissenting opinion that no one joined.
In Day v. McDonough, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Ginsburg (!) while Scalia filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Thomas.
In Jones v. Flowers, Roberts issued the majority ruling while Thomas filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Scalia.
So, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 90.625% (agree in 29 of 32)
Roberts/Thomas: 78.125% (agree in 25 of 32)
After 35 signed rulings in 32 of which all three participated.
And, once again, just for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 84.375%
Roberts/Souter: 84.375%
Next installment to post soon after 40 applicable signed rulings!
Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Marshall v. Marshall
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Holmes v. South Carolina
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–C.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C.
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Brigham City v. Stuart
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion.
Garcetti v. Ceballos
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
So! After 44 signed rulings, 41 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals.
Of the above 9 rulings Roberts and Thomas were in agreement 100% of the time.
In S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia joined as to all but Part III-C. (so close - d'oh!)
So, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 90.244% (agree in 37 of 41)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.927% (agree in 34 of 41)
After 44 signed rulings in 41 of which all three participated.
And, yet again, for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 87.805%
Roberts/Souter: 85.366%
Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp.
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to Part III. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Zedner v. United States
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to all but Part III–A–2. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
House v. Bell
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, inwhich SCALIA and THOMAS, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Hill v. McDonough
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Hudson v. Michigan
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinionconcurring in part and concurring in the judgment. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined as to Parts I, III, and IV. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Howard Delivery Service, Inc. v. Zurich American Ins. Co.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, THOMAS, and BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY, SOUTER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.
Rapanos v. United States
SCALIA, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered anopinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Davis v. Washington
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Samson v. California
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and BREYER, JJ., joined.
So again! After 55 signed rulings, 52 count for our purposes, with three having been excluded due to recusals. Technically, we could also count the per curiam ruling in Youngblood v. West Virginia, as Scalia filed a dissent that was joined by Thomas (and Kennedy filed his own separate dissent). For consistency that one's excluded, but if it were factored in then it'd be one more case where Roberts differed from both Scalia and Thomas, as the Chief Justice joined the per curiam.
Now, by contrast to last installment's unanimity, the above 11 rulings were a mess! These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas:
In Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., Roberts and Scalia joined the majority ruling by Kennedy with Thomas concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In Zedner v. United States, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Alito while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
In Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, Roberts and Thomas joined the majority ruling by Souter while Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
In Davis v. Washington, Roberts joined the majority ruling by Scalia while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
OK, drumroll please!
Roberts/Scalia: 88.462% (agree in 46 of 52)
Roberts/Thomas: 82.692% (agree in 43 of 52)
After 55 signed rulings in 52 of which all three participated.
And, once again, for the sake of curiosity:
Roberts/Kennedy: 80.769% (agree in 42 of 52)
Roberts/Souter: 76.923% (agree in 40 of 52)
And, while we're at it, Alito and Roberts parted ways in two rulings above, so for the 21 cases where both have participated, the agreement is:
Roberts/Alito: 90.476% (agree in 19 of 21)
Next installment to post soon after 50 applicable signed rulings!
PS. When factoring in the new per curiam rulings and the consolidated cases, the maximum possible number of signed rulings for the term that would apply to our purposes is now 68. Therefore, with 9 deviations between Thomas and Roberts, our wager is settled (in my favor) at least so far as the two of them.
Dixon v. United States
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, J., joined.
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales
SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Burlington, N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
Woodford v. Ngo
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
Kansas v. Marsh
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Washington v. Recuenco
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, J., joined.
Randall v. Sorrell
BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to all but Parts II–B–1 and II–B–2. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts II and III.
Arlington Central School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Murphy
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS and SOUTER, JJ., joined.
So, after 64 signed rulings of the Supreme Court, 61 count for our purposes, with three excluded due to recusals. These were the discrepancies between Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas for the latest nine rulings:
In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, Scalia issued the majority ruling while Roberts and Thomas both joined Alito's dissent.
In Randall v. Sorrell, Roberts joined Breyer's majority ruling (Roberts was the only other justice to join in full) while Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined by Scalia.
So, with two more departures between Roberts and Scalia, it would seem that our wager is settled in my favor:
Roberts/Scalia: 86.885% (agree in 53 of 61)
Roberts/Thomas: 83.607% (agree in 51 of 61)
Here are the three other alignment summaries tracked over the past installments:
Roberts/Kennedy: 81.967% (agree in 50 of 61)
Roberts/Souter: 70.492% (agree in 43 of 61)
Roberts/Alito: 86.666% (agree in 26 of 30)
The final installment will post once the last five rulings of the term have been issued. For the wrap-up I will calculate the alignment between Roberts and all the other justices that he served with on the Supreme Court this term. As a bonus, I'll do the same with Alito.
The percentage are nice but somewhat of arbitrary indication. Where the rubber hits the road is in a case like today's Kansas Death Penalty case. Alito and Roberts are no Souter. If O'Conner was still on the court, it might have gone the other way.
I completely agree with you on that!
Seriously, somebody should've done a bet with Ann. Her whole premise that Chief Justice Roberts would be the second coming of Justice Souter just got shot full of holes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.