I've looked over two of today's SCOTUS decisions. Both of them feature heavy majorities with both "conservative" and "liberal" justices; but both of them feature concurring opinions that clearly demonstrate one of the deep divisions currently present on the court.
Scalia and Thomas believe that a judge should take no notice of Congressional intent when interpreting a law, so they don't join the parts of Justice Stevens' opinion for the Court in the first case that talk about Congressional intent.
Stevens and Breyer believe that if there's a question about a statute, then it makes sense to consult what the people who wrote and passed the statute said about what they thought it meant, so they write separately to add the analysis that's missing from Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in the second case.
One of these positions is more democratic and more sensible than the other. Guess which.
Also: Chief Justice Roberst is arguably a failure. His Court is producing extremely fractured opinions, one-paragraph concurrences, and the like; the Justices are not cooperating and are not writing collegially, with an eye to achieving consensus with their fellows, and that is one of the few responsibilities of the CJ.
Also, anyone who complains about "judicial activism" is most likely an ignorant asshole. But that's a topic for a different day.
Posted by Greg at May 19, 2008 1:26 PM