Lineup for Snyder v. LA

Even though SCOTUSblog will competently cover Snyder v. LA (holding that a trial judge committed clear error in rejecting a Batson challenge), I want all you people out that troll the masses about judicial activism, and “liberal” and “conservative” judges to explain the lineup of the justices next time you talk to those people:

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Okay, although I agree with this case, I have a problem with it:

The court seems to redact the name of the trial court judge’s law clerk, but goes into depth about the medical problems (or procedures) of potential juror’s wives?  (And names them.)  Is that really necessary?

SL&P picks up on this here.

Comments

[klerk]

Also, the lineup in yesterday's Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, a 7-2 decision rejecting a facial challenge to Washington's primary rules. Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Alito, Roberts, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter. Scalia dissents and is joined by Kennedy. Admittedly, the disagreement is narrow and relies on the fact that it is a facial, as opposed to as-applied, challenge.

[S. COTUS]

For the lay people, it is just confusion. I mean, nobody can claim that Alito follows Scalia lock-step, or that there is always disagreement between Scalia and RBG.

But, for us, it is curious because if we count opinions to guess who will be writing future opinions, whenever Alito writes an opinion like this, it probably means that he is in the dissent in at least one case where the majority sided with a person seeking some relief from the government.