Supreme Court Paradox?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-06-26-yrendwrapup_N.htm

In the indicated article from USA Today, the author, Joan Biskupic, claims that the Supreme Court’s rulings this term have shown the ideological differences on the bench, as many of the most closely watched cases before the Court have passed by 5-4 votes. And yet, this same author notes that Court opinions have been more in accord on decisions such as favoring workers over their employers. Also noted by the author was the fact that this Supreme Court term has actually produced less obvious fraction than last term. There is then an analysis with questions regarding the Court’s justices moderating their political leanings in favor of consensus. That “moderation” is rebuffed in the analysis, which goes on to indicate that the Court has become more conservative with Justice Alito’s replacing of Justice O’Connor as of 2006. In this current Court it is Justice Anthony Kennedy’s, with an independent, unaligned view to the law, who frequently casts the swing vote.

To this writer, it seems that the Supreme Court finally has a make-up in its Justices that allows for the preservation of the Constitution and its core values. Now balanced in its alignment, due to the strong conservative and liberal leanings to either side, with an independent in the middle, the Court is forced to produce and understand both sides of the arguments and vote in favor of the Constitution and the individual. Now the Court has determined that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms, but America does not have the power to hold people accused of nothing, as in Guantanamo Bay, nor are corporate bodies entitled to greater liberty than those they employ. Although dissensions from the bench have been scathing in their minority opinions, this Court has shown that flawed viewpoints, from either side, usually succumb. There is no paradox in all of this; the Court is ruling in accordance with the intention of the Framers of the Constitution and vigorously arguing the points for all sides while protecting the Constitution and the interest of the individual over corporate and government intrusion.