No, all the Democratic appointed justices are moderates.
The Republican faction just has a mix of conservative but sane Justices, Roberts and Kennedy, and arch-conservative justices, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.
Moderates would disagree with each other on various issues, not vote lock step 90% of the time. At least three, if not all, of the four liberal justices are ultra-liberals whose votes on controversial cases are so preordained that no one even speculates how they will vote. It is known beforehand.
Even Scalia, Alito and Thomas agree with each other less than 90% of the time, unlike the liberals on the court.
That makes no sense.
Why does voting together mean you're far-left?
And, isn't it more necessary to vote together if you're in the minority and you're trying to pick up a Roberts or Kennedy?
And, couldn't conservatives disagreeing just mean that there's more of a range from center-right Kennedy to far-right Thomas than there is between moderates Kagan and Breyer?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on Ginsburg and Breyer since their votes were somewhat in doubt on the AZ commission case, but name me a 6-3 or 5-4 decision on which Kagan or Sotomayor took a conservative position.
I'm guessing you don't follow the court that closely. It happens. They nearly all have an issue from which the break from their ideological grouping. Sotomayor, especially, has strong feelings on the Fourth Amendment.
As examples, take the 5-4 Scialabba case, where Sotomayor and Kagan split, or Hall v. U.S., where Sotomayor joined the conservatives.
