Judiciary remembers the "independent" part. Film at 11.

So. Uh.

Antonin Scalia writes a dissent in the Hamdi case thwacking the Administration for its (admittedly ridiculous) claim to unrestrained control over the lives, liberty, and property of enemy combatants. And, um, the only person with the balls to sign on is John Paul Stevens, who usually has Scalia at his throat.

The world's gone mad.

To make matters more absurd, Justice Clarence Thomas, never known for being open-minded, concurred with the majority opinion in the recent "internet porn" decision. Said majority opinion was written by Kennedy and concurred with by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. Dissenting were Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor,... and Stephen Breyer.

As near as Diane and I have been able to figure it out, argument went something like this:
Scalia and Stevens (together): "You guys are working outside the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, the tradition on which--"
Scalia and Stevens (together, looking at one another): "You?!"
Rehnquist: "OK, this is it, Clarence and Steve. Time to pay up on your bets!"
Thomas and Breyer: "Awww, do we have to?"
Rehnquist: "Hey, do you guys think the public at large suspects that these incredible divergences from our voting records are actually vote-swaps set up at the Christmas party poker game?"

And that's why Breyer and Thomas switched their votes.