×
TODAY IN TAP ONLINE. In the run-up to his confirmation as chief justice, John Roberts claimed that he would bring harmony and consensus to the Supreme Court. Today, in a story from our May print issue, Simon Lazarus shows how Roberts has had the exact opposite effect:
And yet, the Roberts Court's actual performance draws quite a different picture from its chief's off-the-court presentations. In the evolving record of oral arguments and decisions, evidence is sparse that the justices are muting their differences. Most significantly, there is little evidence that Roberts has tried particularly hard to lead the way toward any such synthesis. On the contrary, at least in the big, controversial cases, the new Court is, if anything, more polarized than Rehnquist's was. News stories on decisions have cast the Court as split between robotic "conservative" and "liberal" blocs, with Anthony Kennedy the swing justice in the middle. In these reports, Roberts does not lead; he is twinned with his fellow Bush appointee Samuel Alito as half of a lockstep duo that has reinforced hard-line conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.Lazarus goes on to explain what the new chief's tenure tells us about ideological jurisprudence -- and the shortcomings of liberal judicial critiques. Plus:
- Tom Schaller contemplates the possibility of rank-and-file Republicans throwing their support behind a statement candidate rather than one of the leading three contenders.
- J. Goodrich notices that studies that support the socially conservative worldview -- especially those that seem to point to the benefits of traditional gender roles -- get better media pick-up and generate more buzz than research that shows the opposite.
- And Drew Westen names the four things Democrats need to do to effectively brand themselves.
