Justice Breyer can’t by any reasonable measure be described as a “conservative” Justice relative to the current Court, and “conservative appointee” is a pretty useless (or in this case grossly misleading) label.
Whoops. I didn't realize I had made that mistake. And instead of "conservative appointee" I intended to reference the appointing President. Though, it does strengthen the argument for the mixture of majority and dissenting opinions. Thanks for the correction.
