I can't speak for Greenhouse (I agree with Morgan that one would think that "the Establishment" would have had the same views in these three cases).

Speaking for myself, we know that the Shaw cases are very fact-specific for Justice O'Connor.  Look at the detailed factual analyses that she wrote or joined in all the cases. We also know (thanks to Rick Pildes's work) that O'Connor views these cases as "expressive harms" cases, where she is concerned by the "message" that a district shape sends to voters: bizarre shapes in O'Connor's view send a pernicious message about the role of race in politics that more regularly shaped districts do not. Given the wide range of facts and shapes of districts across these cases (not to mention differences in the justifications the states have put forward for their districting plans), it has always been anyone's guess how O'Connor would respond in specific Shaw cases.
Rick

J. Morgan Kousser wrote:

  The question I have about Rick's and Greenhouse's analysis is why O'Connor didn't react favorably to the partisan political arguments that were made in the briefs in Shaw v. Hunt and Bush v. Vera?  They were no less strong than those in Hunt v. Cromartie.
Morgan

Prof. of History and Social Science, Caltech
snail mail:  228-77 Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125
phone 626-395-4080
fax 626-405-9841
web site:  <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~kousser/Kousser.html>
to order Colorblind Injustice:  http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-388.html
          "Peace if possible, Justice at any rate" -- Wendell Phillips