"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...


It's roughly split. There have been some key 5:4 cases with this Court,
swinging either way.

That's not particularly bad, IMO, because the swing vote usually is not
ideological, but is based on either jurisprudence or a reasoned opinion.
It
puts the ideologues on both sides to the test. There are ideologues on
this
Court but its decisions are mostly non-ideological, as a result of the
split.

The trouble is, ideologues don't like jurisprudence. The end always
justifies the means in their minds.

Is rehnquist still participating in decisions?

Apparently he did in this one. I haven't read anything about it but this
case must have been heard when he was still present on the bench.

--
Ed Huntress