[Always Right]

Roberts would have to agree in full with at least one of 90% of the time. I guess the full agreement part may make it difficult to track, but I am confident Roberts will be in full agreement with at least one of them 90% of the time.

[AntiGuv]

Ah, I see. Well I will have to decline that bet. The statistic of agreeing in full with either Thomas or Scalia should be very close to 100%, just like it was with O'Connor and is with Kennedy, unless Roberts turns into a complete disaster. So, I guess you're not making a meaningful point. ;^)

I'm bored so I'll go calculate the respective statistic for O'Connor & Kennedy for the just concluded term.

[steveegg]

Roberts would have to agree in full with at least one of 90% of the time. I guess the full agreement part may make it difficult to track, but I am confident Roberts will be in full agreement with at least one of them 90% of the time.

Which does not answer my question on whether a separate concurrance on a case where they also joined in an opinion (not in part) would count as a "full" agreement. The reason I ask is that Thomas not only fully-joined in the dissent that O'Connor wrote in Kelo, but he also wrote a separate dissent.