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? ;)
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.
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?