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 ...
So, Mr. Alito seems to be the most conservative.
I take it the Times sees this as a Bush Failure instead of the fact that there are 3 absolutely unbending Liberals, a 90% Liberal and one who's trying to wear Sandra Day's skirt.
No, Scalia is. Roberts isn't as conservative as Scalia.
Kind of makes it totally clear why "Real Conservatives" should desperately want the GOP to win in Nov 206 now doesn't it?
Not to be an apologist for the NYT, but the article does seem (after the initial blatherings) to be written in fairness. At least it struck me that way, but I am a former liberal and a former NYT subscriber, so perhaps I have some left over bias. I don't believe so, but .........
I wonder who Hillary's appointments are going to be.
I though Ruthie "Bad Girl" Ginsburg was the most liberal on the SCOUTS?
The NYT Flux.
No one. Hillary Clinton will never be President.
Neither Ginsburg nor Stevens would be able to attend votes, and Souter would have to go elsewhere for his dates.
Good for you for owning up to it...believe me- there are plenty of us here who are recovered libs..
As to the left over and unconcious bias- the first step is admitting:) This is a process that takes years...
Whomever her party tells her to vote for or against, its not like she will ever get to choose someone for the court.
Unless its Rudy, Pataki, or Romney, then, it really wouldn't matter.
You are very correct again...about the necessity of the GOP to stay in the majority...RINOS or not.
BUT, I just have a feeling that Soros, Clinton and gang have BEGGED Kennedy and Ginsberg NOT to retire no matter what until 2009.
And, even if they can't wait until then...if they retire in summer of 2008...betcha it will be heck getting anyone confirmed during a POTUS election summer and fall.
Heaven help us if Hillary gets to choose anyone..I am sure it would be someone that has "contributed" a lot of$$$$$$$ to the Clintons..and would have been "programmed" to do stupid stuff like the court did this week, and the Kelo decision.
Did not realize Rudy, Pataki or Romny were on the ballot in Nov 2006. :-) One election at a time please. Let get thru 2006 before we start worrying about 2008.
I'd love to hear how Roberts or Alito are more conservative than Thomas or Scalia.
I know, it just grind your gourd to finally actually have to say something positive about President Bush but there it is.
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.
Do you need the Bucket Brigade? ;)
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.