Who's the Real Swing Vote?
I think that the Washington Post is a little confused:
"In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was by a 5-4 margin."
"Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result... [Stevens wrote the dissent] Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented."
Doesn't this mean that Breyer was the swing vote?
MSNBC likewise seems to make this mistake: "In that 5-4 ruling, and another ruling involving a granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was 5-4... [Re: Kentucky] Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc - Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as O'Connor."
Am I missing something? Did they both make the same mistake or was O'Connor somehow a swing vote and I'm not seeing the full picture?
From what I've gathered, here's the breakdown:
Texas
Majority: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer (concurring)
Dissent: Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
Kentucky
Majority: Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor
Dissent: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy
If that's right (and it is) it means that Breyer was in the majority in both opinions. He supported the display in one case and opposed it in the other. Everyone else consistently opposed or supported the displays, therefore Breyer provided the "swing" vote. Right?
I guess the media are just too accustomed to the overly-"nuanced" O'Connor to even bother checking the facts before they report anything.
*U*P*D*A*T*E* Wa-Po has fixed their article, but MS-NBC hasn't yet -- hurry up and check it out before they do!
"In that 5-4 ruling and another decision involving the positioning of a 6-foot granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was by a 5-4 margin."
"Rehnquist was joined in his opinion by Scalia, and Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Stephen G. Breyer filed a separate opinion concurring in the result... [Stevens wrote the dissent] Justices O'Connor, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented."
Doesn't this mean that Breyer was the swing vote?
MSNBC likewise seems to make this mistake: "In that 5-4 ruling, and another ruling involving a granite monument of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas Capitol, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote. The second ruling, likewise, was 5-4... [Re: Kentucky] Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc - Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as O'Connor."
Am I missing something? Did they both make the same mistake or was O'Connor somehow a swing vote and I'm not seeing the full picture?
From what I've gathered, here's the breakdown:
Texas
Majority: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Breyer (concurring)
Dissent: Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg
Kentucky
Majority: Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor
Dissent: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy
If that's right (and it is) it means that Breyer was in the majority in both opinions. He supported the display in one case and opposed it in the other. Everyone else consistently opposed or supported the displays, therefore Breyer provided the "swing" vote. Right?
I guess the media are just too accustomed to the overly-"nuanced" O'Connor to even bother checking the facts before they report anything.
*U*P*D*A*T*E* Wa-Po has fixed their article, but MS-NBC hasn't yet -- hurry up and check it out before they do!