I think the unprecedented unanimity is a result of CJ Roberts pulling the liberals close. He seems to be a good lobbyist. He’s been able to get them to vote with him several times on what LL calls narrowly conservative decisions.
There have been some truly unanimous, or near unanimous, opinions (e.g., the cell-phone search case and the IRS summons case), but many of the cases the article is counting as "unanimous" are only unanimous decisions without unanimous opinions, and the Court actually deeply divided as to the rationale for the decision (the recess-appointment case, the abortion clinic protest case, many others). In each of those cases, Roberts wrote or joined a majority opinion which reached a conservative result on a narrow (sometimes very narrow) ground (although that is still nothing like the Obamacare case, where Roberts joined a majority decision reaching a liberal result). So yes, I attribute this to Roberts' diplomacy. Not that that is a bad thing; it is, IMHO, good for the rule of law that the Court not be perceived as a purely political institution.
“I think the unprecedented unanimity is a result of CJ Roberts pulling the liberals close. He seems to be a good lobbyist.”
Interesting, and not 180 degrees out from what I said.
But should a justice lobby, or should he persuade on legal and philosophical grounds?
“He’s been able to get them to vote with him several times on what LL calls narrowly conservative decisions.”
I wonder how he did that, and also what is meant by “narrowly conservative.”