There's some kind of science vortex surrounding this administration.

So here's something from an article in the WaPo describing a study of Roberts' rulings since he was appointed to the DC court of appeals. A quote in the article from the study's author:

"An overall comparison of Judge Roberts' decision-making indicates that he is somewhat more conservative than the average appellate court judge, though not dramatically so," writes the study's author, Kenneth L. Manning, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts's Dartmouth campus. [WaPo]

And here's text from the study itself:

I find that Roberts is very conservative in his decision making in criminal justice disputes, and the data suggest that he is exceptionally conservative in civil liberties and rights cases (though the limited numbers of cases in this area restrict the ability to draw any firm conclusions). In labor and economic disputes, however, Judge Roberts has been more liberal than the appellate court average. [UMass Dartmouth PoliSci Dept]

So my question is, what kind of math are you doing to get "very conservative" in 1 category + "exceptionally conservative" in 1 category + "more liberal than average" (which sounds kind of small) in 1 category and have that = "somewhat more conservative than average...though not dramatically so?" Plus, Bush has been stacking the judiciary with ultra conservative judges so I don't see how being "not dramatically" more conservative than the average appeals court judge really means anything.