Like Ann, I haven't read a word of the opinion. But one thing is striking about it: its author, CJ Rehnquist. So let't think a minute. Had he joined Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy in dissent, then Stevens gets to assign the opinion. Instead, Rehnquist is able to assign the opinion to himself (and not even to O'Connor, whom he may not trust on women's issues). Does anybody on this list believe that a Rehnqist opinion is not likely to be more narrowly drawn, with regard to national power, than an opinion written by Stevens or any of the other judges in the majority, possibly including O'Connor? So is it possible that we see an example of strategic voting. (An answer might depend on the way that votes are currently conducted in the SC. If the CJ goes last, then he indeed knew, by the time he voted, that Hibbs would win. If he went first, then it would be harder to strategize, of course.)
sandy I haven¹t read it yet. Ann
