In the two years since that hearing, the court has only made his point stronger. In case after case, the court--with seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents--has confounded and disappointed conservatives. It has refused to abandon sweeping constitutional rulings of previous courts and, in some cases, it has extended them.

What this little article actually notes is that the Rehnquist court has been less "activist" than expected. It has declined to overturn past decisions.

When I was taking law 20 years ago, the court had Brennen, and Marshall, both decidedly liberal, and Warren Burger, who on this court I guess the writer of this article would call, based on the way this article is written, moderate/liberal. Calling this court liberal would be completely wrong. Comparing any member of the current court to past liberal giants Brennan or Marshall, there is not a "liberal" on the bench.

A better way to describe the makeup might be-

liberal- Breyer, Ginsberg
moderate- Stevens, O'Connor (and only because of the makeup of the rest of the group)
independant- Souter, Kennedy
conservative- Rehnquist
conservative activist- Scalia, Thomas

The 1987 court was-
liberal- Brennan, Marshall
moderate- White, Powell
independant- Blackmun, Stevens
conservative- O'Connor, Rehnquist
conservative activist- (even then) Scalia.

That O'Connor is now considered among the moderates does not mean that she has shifted that way, but that the court itself has shifted enough to the right to make her one.

I never thought I'd say this, but I hope Rehnquist continues to hold out. A court with multiple representatives from the current know-nothing branch of the Republican party would be a disaster.

Court choices unpredictable