Content area
Full Text
An early assessment of the Roberts Court
The Rehnquist Court, which concluded its 19-year run during the summer of 2005, was frequently depicted as a fractured and divisive body.1 Much of this divisiveness was attributed to strong ideological differences among some of the justices. Indeed, the Rehnquist Court was quite often interpreted through the classic lens of ideological warfare, with three of the most conservative justices in history (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) waging war both against the two more moderate conservatives (O'Connor and Kennedy) as well as against three of the most liberal justices in history (Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens).3
By this well-accepted account, the divisiveness on the Court was further fueled by the belligerent style of certain justices, including most notably, Antonin Scalia. During his nearly two decades on the Rehnquist Court, Scalia cemented his reputation as a stubborn and recalcitrant character, relentlessly attacking those who might disagree with his ideology or judging philosophy.3
Scalia's early years on the Court loomed large in constructing this account of a bitterly divided Supreme Court. Speaking of the Fall 1988 term in particular, which was marked by frequent Scalia diatribes against his fellow brethren, one commentator called it "the most rancorous" high court term in 50 years/ Neiu York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse has remarked on the vituperative and persona] tone of the justices in the early years of the Rehnquist Court, making special note of Scalia's stinging public comments.5 Tony Mauro of USA Today reported that under Rehnquist's leadership Scalia grew "increasingly nasty" with his fellow justices, taking "verbal swipes" at Sandra Day O'Connor in particular when she did not vote as conservatively as he would like.6
When Chief Justice John Roberts took over the helm of the Court in September of 2005, he declared that one of his main goals was to bring a more "collegial atmosphere" to the body. Specifically, he expressed an interest in adding both "credibility and stability" to the law by urging his new colleagues to find agreement in their opinions wherever possible. Recalling the John Marshall Court era of the early 19Lh century - when nearly every case handed down was unanimous - Roberts complained that the divided opinions of the modern era have been "eroding, to some...