The Supreme Court in summation

The most important prism through which to view the U.S. Supreme Court term that ended last week is the wisdom of the court's decisions -- or the lack of it. But the results of Justice David H. Souter's last term on the court also illuminate questions about the court's role that are sure to figure in the Senate confirmation hearings of his designated successor, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Our own view of the court is that it isn't a legislature by another name in which liberals and conservatives pursue predetermined agendas in the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Although every justice brings personal and philosophical predilections to the bench, the credibility of the court depends on the perception that its members strive to subordinate those preferences in particular cases.

As for "judicial activism," a charge hurled mainly at liberals by conservatives and occasionally vice versa, we believe that the court ought to defer to other branches of government when the legal issues are clear. The problem is that they often aren't clear. Justices shouldn't act as algorithms to process facts; they are selected by presidents to apply enduring constitutional principles to evolving conflicts. In cases in which the Constitution doesn't clearly command a particular result -- on issues as diverse as racial equality, gun ownership and the rights of criminal defendants -- there is a principle that should guide the court. It's the motto engraved on its own building: "Equal Justice Under Law."

Factions vs. consensus

By those two standards -- open-mindedness about individual cases, coupled with a special vigilance about violations of individual rights -- this past term produced mixed results but not the rightward lurch that some feared.

The fact that 23 out of 74 signed decisions were decided by 5-4 votes, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy again playing the pivotal role, perpetuates the image of inflexible factions on the court. At the same time, in some cases the court achieved consensus in a way that didn't upend protections for civil rights or usurp the prerogatives of Congress. That may have reflected a rededication by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to the ideal of judicial modesty he trumpeted at his confirmation hearings -- or, as more cynical observers suspect, Roberts may be engaged in an incremental undermining of precedents he opposes. Either way, the wrecking crew feared by some civil rights groups never materialized.