The usual split?
Yesterday, the Court held, by a 5/4 majority, that Washington's sentencing rules are unconstitutional. The Washington sentencing guidlines allow judges to make findings of fact after a jury trial. Based on these findings, the judge can increase the convicted's jail time beyond the bounds of jail time set out for the crime convicted.

The Court held this violates the 6th amendment right to a jury trial. I agree. But look at this (Linda Greenhouse in the Times):

Bitterly split in a 5-to-4 decision that cut across the court's usual ideological lines, the justices continued a profound five-year-long debate over the respective roles of judges and juries in criminal sentencing.

The split went like this:

Scalia wrote the majority, joined by Justices Souter, Stevens, Thomas and Ginsburg.

O'Connor wrote the dissent, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer.

Quite to the contrary of the usual lines, they played red rover and crashed into the other side. Anyway, it's always fun to read a Scalia opinion with which I agree.