I didn't. Divides were kept hidden. But no more.
With the liberal bloc narrowly losing a number of high-profile cases this term -- including late-term abortion, campaign finance reform, and public school desegregation -- the political and legal stakes produced sharper ideological lines.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer all wrote toughly worded dissents, punctuated by reading some of them from the bench. It is a rarely used privilege, reserved for only the biggest, most contentious cases.
"The one symbolic step that they can take to show they are almost outraged and that they think something terrible has happened is to read these dissents from the bench. And so the fact that the more liberal members of the court have done it is really a sign that they are frustrated."
I expect this from ordinary, garden-variety liberals, but I'd like to think that Supreme Court justices are at least a little above such plebeian acts. Apparently they're not.
Legal experts say the new conservative majority of the Roberts court will continue to produce divided rulings, and divisive rhetoric.
Why weren't legal scholars saying such things when liberals held sway in the court? Gawd, liberals think we're all entitled to their beliefs.
Update, 7/9/07: Here's someone else who thinks we're all entitled to the liberal view regarding court decisions.