[Alter Kaker]

Doesn't sound like a conservative, but then I'm not a lawyer.

[nunoste]

I'd say this is a conservative (small c) approach. If you try to get 9 very smart people to agree on anything in a case, it is likely to be a very limited agreement. This means the decision will be narrow and limited, ie. conservative (again, small c). However, if you are a Conservative (big C), and all you care about is the outcome regardless of whether or not its 5 justices or 9, then this isn't likely to be a favorable approach for Conservatives.

[bronxboy]

Great;

A supremem oourt leader who is afraid to lead...not important decisions just consensus. We like this guy because?

[pageonetoo]

He is conservative to the bone. I see this as a proper role of the USSC.

Their role is to decide matters based on the US Constitution and its laws. We have had Roe v. Wade (and other spurious rulings) forced on our country, because of broad answers to questions not properly asked. This will require direct attention to the center of the controversy, not the peripheral issues which allow things to become settled without getting down to the "nitty gritty". It can actually bring change for the better!

[thoughtomator]

It's very classically conservative. Understandable that it might not be easily recognized in today's RINO atmosphere.

[GSlob]

"Doesn't sound like a conservative, but then I'm not a lawyer."
Well, it is indeed a conservative position - "the narrowest grounds" is indeed "thou shalt not innovate, and if you have to, innovate as little as possible". Complete opposite of the sweeping breadth of judicial activism.