Dems in disarray as far as the eye can see. What a beeeoootiful sight.

Also note that the members of the conservative majority didn't feel compelled to demonstrate their brilliance in separate opinions, contrary to the predictions of some.

That's why Roberts was hired, to get the others to shut up and sign their names--so far, so good.

No doubt it went down like this:

GWB: Kid, your job will be to tell Scalia, Thomas and the others to 'shut up and sign their names.'

JGR: No problem, boss. The dudes have been chillin over there for decades just waiting for someone to tell them what to do.

GWB: My man!

Alright, I confess: Harriet Meirs provided me with that transcript.

curt:

Read The Brethren or just about anything about William Brennan--a good politician on the Court makes a huge difference. Why do you think they let Blackmun write the incoherent Roe opinion? Three little letters: G. O. P.

What evidence did GWB have that Roberts was a good politician?

Curt, I'm thinking you don't get to be president if you don't have a clue about that sort of thing, and I thing Bush is better at it then most.

Robert,

What evidence do we have that GWB was looking to hire a good politician? He certainly said nothing about it in nominating Roberts: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050905.html

curt:

It's his theory of the Court--had Ashcroft been healthy he'd have gotten one of these slots. W recognizes the need for a politician who can massage majorities into shape.

I understand the theory, but I'm not sure it is a theory that animates GWB's picks (Meirs, anyone?), and I serious doubt the theory had anything to do with today's decision.

I think all 5 of those guys were capable of figuring out that they ought to speak with one voice when they were a bare majority. SOP.

curt:

That's exactly why he picked Miers--she's known as a consensus builder who can submerge her own ego when working with others.

They can't. Scalia and Thomas are in a pissing match over whose theories of the Constitution should prevail and who's smarter and Rhenquist didn't play them well enough to stop it.

oj,

If you rest easy tonight believing that Roberts is responsible for this decision, just as GWB planned it, I'm happy for you. It's your blog, and your alternative reality.

I'm pretty sure this is my alternative reality.

That's what the two headed dog at reception told me.

The evidence seems to support OJ, Curt. Could you explain why you disagree?

Robert,

Very funny!

Evidence? Our host does not bother with such trifles.

Trifles? Mmmmm.....

Now I'm stahvin'.

Thanks.

Curt, his statement at the end of his post(see above) was his evidence. What evidence do you have to counter it?

curt:

When things work out exactly the way they were supposed it seems only sensible to observe that fact. I have no problem with your view that things happen completely by coincidence.

Robert,

Sorry, thought you were making a joke.

OJ's assertion about Scalia and Thomas is an assertion, not evidence, and like all of OJ's assertions about judicial matters, is just weird. Scalia and Thomas traditionally vote together as much as or more than any two justices: http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/voting_alignments_supreme_court.shtml.

When they're not in the majority, they're usually together in dissent or concurrence: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:1v29Go9Z7zcJ:www.law.georgetown.edu/sci/documents/OT2004OverviewMemo_Final.pdf+scalia+thomas+alignments&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=12&ie=UTF-8

It is true that they disagree on rare occasions, but what would you expect?

Of course, this is all a distraction from OJ's initial points, which are also not supported by any evidence. OJ's notions about how GWB selects judges are merely OJ's notions. OJ's notion that Roberts is a "politician" of a sort previously lacking on the Court is not supported by any evidence I've seen. OJ's notion that Roberts was responsible for the fact that 4 Justices signed on with J. Kennedy today is simply his imagination at work.

Thank you for your response, Curt. I think you are getting Fact and Evidence confused. A solid majority and a fractured minority on the court is evidence that Roberts has changed the court. Is it Fact? Don't know. It's a fact that Mr. Bush is a good politician. That is evidence that he would choose judges who advance his vision of America. Most politicians believe that political skills are important(fact). That's evidence that Bush choose Roberts for his political skills, among other things. Is it a Fact? Don't know. In the shadow puppet show that is D.C. Facts are hard to come by, and we must look for evidence.

curt:

Most decisions are just boilerplate, so they inevitably vote together often. But Scalia has been quite verbal about how he breaks with Thomas over the latter's healthy disregard for stare decisis and in cases like Hamdi over government's power. Their agreement is over trivial matters that all conservatives would agree on, their disputes over fundamental matters that shape the law.

George Bush stated a desire to appoint justices who would push the majority towards consensus -- lawyers and intellectuals care about the reasoning, leaders (business leaders in particular) care about the results -- and, lo and behold, Chief Roberts is achieving just the results the Presiden wanted him to. Quite coincidentally, of course....

Curt: OJ is like one of those eccentric Englishmen who's a great host but is convinced he's a teapot. It's bad taste to try and convince him otherwise. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Nice Patrick O'Brian reference.

So I take it we can use this ruling as a basis to fire all the teachers who decide that even though they're supposed to be teaching geography or some other bothersome subject, they have the "right" to subject their students to regular anti-US rants?