Some might do that, especially the political partisans out there, but the objectives and motivations for saying so wouldn't pass the 'red face' test. The sales pitch that Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would be out to help someone suspected to be ideologically generally opposed to their points of view is asking people to believe oil and water mix.

In fact, wanting the decision rendered beforehand hurts the cause of anyone opposed to Sotomayor on political/ideological grounds. Had the court followed the protocol to avoid the mere appearance of propriety by simply deferring the decision until after Sotomayor is either confirmed, withdrawn, or denied, the conservative justices would have gotten integrity points with all the fair minded, and partisans on the left who would begrudge them on that score would be banging a hollow and self-discrediting drum.

It also wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. Similarly, Sotomayor would have had to recuse herself by the same common expectation of avoiding the appearance of impropriety given she was part of the decision under review. That would have made the decision a 5-3 case, a better result for the majority opinion viewholders. So, a 'two fer' was missed from a partisan standpoint. Instead, the 'right' of the SCOTUS, Congress and their supportive pundits and others concerning her impending confirmation hearings and the integrity of the decision will be questioned.

By not releasing the decision until the status of Sotomayor is shortly decided as to whether she will join them, the SCOTUS basically would have said they are aware of the dynamics of that case and Sotomayor in the next coming weeks as to themselves, and would be consistent with court practice to avoid all appearances of impropriety. The deferment of publicising the decision until after her pending confirmation process is completed would have been a statement of neutrality on whether Sotomayor should be a member of their court and wants no part of the political frays of that decision. It's not an avoidance of making the decision.

Now, it will have to defend itself and its decision insofar as its integrity. That is why the standard is 'mere appearance of impropriety'--it isn't supposed to do anything that even signals that something improper might have been an issue in their decision.

__________________