From my point of view there are three conservatives, four liberals, and two confused souls (O’Connor and Kennedy).

Given the retirement rumors that exist, if Rehnquist and O’Connor are replaced by real conservatives (as oppossed to Gonzalez), there will be four and four with Kennedy in the middle.

Now if we could get one of the lefties to resign sometime, then we could truly have five conservatives (Scalia, Thomas plus three new ones).

Ideological judges “consistent in their views” have not done the court any good lately, in my view. Thomas is consistent (above all he is consistent). Some of the “more liberal”s have been consistent in expanding certain government power; great. Scalia’s consistent when it counts; he’s out to harm the people he hates, help the people he likes (I kid; only not exactly. See my blawg for what I mean).

Tom’s point, I think, is that Warren got an 8-0 Court for Brown v. Board. A Chief who is not just a heavyweight but a persuasive heavy hitting intellectual, one who will swing the Court in their direction, as Stevens has lately had the Court swing towards him, would be a lasting legacy for a President. I don’t believe that Bush could successfully nominate such a person who was an ideologue who would help him politically. That’s well and good.

I’d like to see someone who is politically tolerable to most Republicans but who will tear the far right a new one on the religion front. Rehnquist’s replacement should _not_ have his facile, ahistorical and pro-majoritarian bent on matters of God.

They don’t have to be popular, they just have to engender respect in their commitment to the law and to reason (although compassion wouldn’t hurt).

Just wanted to echo the excellent work sentiment. You’ve done a wonderful job of breaking the info down into a very easy to read, and cite, form. Keep up the great service.

TG responds: Eric – thanks so much. That’s incredibly kind of you to write. I hope that readers are checking out your blog as well.

Perhaps that only affirms your point–any change from a culture where the conferences are for headcounting and opinion assignment to one where the Justices actually engage each other on the substance of the cases would take a strong leader indeed to effect.

But it might be just as plausible to conclude that the culture of the Court is such that the 9 members will do their work in relative isolation no matter the personality of the Chief, and so it would not be worthwhile to overvalue “leadership” qualities among the virtues one would look for in a candidate for the post.

More on the greatest parlor game for political addicts. From around the sphere: SCOTUS blog takes a look at 5-4 cases Ankle Biters note the libs are “preparing for war”, despite all those warm fuzzies everyone had a few weeks…

I think what you describe is incorrect, the correct description of the makeup of Supreme Court would be that the core bloc is made up of swinging moderates.

Or it would be more accurate to say the philosophy of “moderation” is far more divisive and in some ways causing the polarization of America in politics.

Which do you prefer, a moderate that can never be nailed down satisfactorily or an ideological judge that’s quite consistent in his views?

Think long and hard on that one, kids.

Tom Goldstein takes a look.

TG responds: really nice of you to write, thanks.

I have this post up on the main SCOTUSblog….