From: "Mark" 


"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:42ef68fb{at}w3.nls.net...
>> You might be able to say that a majority were appointed by Republicans,
>> but I am not sure that translates to a majority of conservatives.
>
> I'm sure of it, it's only logical.  Some may be more middle of the road
> than the current crop of republicans (it's hard not to be,) but they're
> still conservatives.

You're in a distinct minority (possibly a statistically unmeasurable one)
then. From the July Atlantic Magazine (I don't think you can get there from
here without donating some money to them, but here's the url:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200507u/nj_taylor_2005-07-05 )

"O'Connor's leftward drift helps account for the supposedly
conservative Rehnquist Court's surprisingly liberal trend in recent years.
So do the similar evolutions of Anthony Kennedy, another Reagan appointee,
and John Paul Stevens, a once-moderate Ford appointee who is now the leader
of the Court's liberal bloc. Not to mention the emergence of David Souter
as a liberal soon after his appointment by the first President Bush.
Kennedy or O'Connor (or both) often leave conservatives gnashing their
teeth, by allying with Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
the only other Democratic (Clinton) appointee, against Rehnquist, Antonin
Scalia, and Clarence Thomas."
====
There are countless analyses from a myriad of sources about the liberal
direction of the court, I chose the above from the liberal
"Atlantic" because I figured if I used one from the conservative
"National Review" your eyes would have glazed over immediately
instead of half-way through the excerpt 

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5