This paper is an empirical analysis of the Supreme Court's recently-ended 2005 term, including an examination of the issues raised by, and the ideological direction of, the decisions issued by the Court. In addition to reviewing the work of the Court as a whole, the paper also separately examines the jurisprudence of new Justices Roberts and Alito. In doing so, it raises the possibility that these justices may have more in common with each other than with the Court's more established conservative members. The paper also demonstrates that the Court, pursuant to one of Justice Roberts' frequently stated goals, was more unified than it has been in recent years, although this relative unity failed in the term's most important cases.
Lori A. Ringhand,
The Roberts Court: Year 1
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/658