Posted on 07/01/2006 12:55:31 PM PDT by definitelynotaliberal
WASHINGTON, July 1 As the dust settled on a consequential Supreme Court term, the first in 11 years with a change in membership and the first in two decades with a new chief justice, one question that lingered was whether it was now the Roberts court, in fact as well as in name.
The answer: not yet.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was clearly in charge, presiding over the court with grace, wit and meticulous preparation. But he was not in control.
In the court's most significant nonunanimous cases, Chief Justice Roberts was in dissent almost as often as he was in the majority. His goal of inspiring the court to speak softly and unanimously seemed a distant aspiration as important cases failed to produce majority opinions and members of the court, including occasionally the chief justice himself, gave voice to their frustration and pique with colleagues who did not see things their way.
.......
A separate analysis, by the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown University Law Center, showed that Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts had the highest agreement rate of any two justices in the court's nonunanimous cases, 88 percent, slightly higher than the agreement rate between Justice O'Connor and Justice David H. Souter in the first half of the term, 87.5 percent.
Chief Justice Roberts agreed with Justice Scalia in 77.5 percent of the nonunanimous cases and with Justice Stevens, arguably the court's most liberal member, only 35 percent of the time. The least agreement between any pair of justices was between Justices Alito and Stevens, 23.1 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This is the bias. The idea that somehow the court should be in lockstep with the Chief Justice and the underlying insinuation that because he is not in control he is a failure as CJ.
The sound of the NYT masterbating in a panic.
Stevens, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsberg.... do you think that's who the author of "Pelican Brief" would include in his book now?
I will certainly say something good about Bush in that he nominated two good, conservative justices. However, your argument that they are the most conservative assumes that Stevens is the most liberal member of the Court by evaluating Stevens opinions subjectively. By that logic, I could argue that Stevens is not the most liberal member of the Court because he doesn't disagree with Scalia, the most conservative member of the as much as his colleges. Scalia and Thomas' opinions this term were decidedly more conservative than Roberts or Alito.
The Greenhouse effect...
I just saw on the Beltway Boys...that Justice Stevens is interviewing clerks for the 2007-2008 session, and NO OTHER justices are retiring..
I tell ya...Soros and Clinton have told them if they have to...prop themselves up in those chairs until after the 2008 election.
Good thinking...
Stevens is looking for clerks with a strong physical resemblance to him.
Tell me do you think this tinfoil is to tight?
_________________________________________________________________
NYT - The End of The Supreme Court Term
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/02/washington/20060702_SCOTUS_GRAPHIC.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1151800391-/mrxfCIPoXTYoRoR7x+mQA
In the upcoming punitive damages case, I've heard that three who have qualms about putting limits (constitution silent, not the courts biz, etc.) on damages are Justice(s) Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Do any of the legals wizards out there know of another (non-unanimous) decision where Justice Ginsburg agrees with (either) Scalia or Thomas?
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.