You have the Million Hoodies Movement for Justice on one side, and on the other you have stores that ban them because they worry criminals will wear them.
One of my more interesting experiences was being involved in an argument with State and Justice on one side and CIA and the NSC on the other concerning the desirability and feasibility of kidnapping a certain "Mughniyah," one of the chief Hezbollah terrorists, responsible for blowing up the Marine barracks in Beirut.
It is no coincidence that split decisions so frequently find the liberal justices on one side and the conservative justices on the other side.
In many important recent decisions the supreme court has split along ideological lines, with four so-called "liberal" justices on one side and four so-called "conservative" justices on the other.
The decision, United States v. Santos, No. 06-1005, produced an unusual lineup, with two of the most conservative justices on one side and two on the other.
With four justices on one side arguing for a sharp restriction in the definition of wetlands that are subject to federal jurisdiction, and four justices on the other arguing for retaining the broad definition that the Army Corps of Engineers has used for decades, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy controlled the outcome in a solitary opinion.
If one has justice on one's side, it always pays to be honest and open.
Indeed, in not a single one of those 25 decisions were all of the justices appointed by Republican presidents on one side, and all of the justices appointed by Democratic presidents on the other side.
On one side, Chief Justice John Roberts argued the court would harm democracy if it inserted itself into the political process and started striking down electoral maps.
Agreed: in the instance of Supreme Court justices who might speak out, the need for recusal -- which may indeed occur if a Justice has publicly opined on one side of an issue or another -- may directly impact a case before the Court, particularly if a recusal might result in a 4-4 split.
