William Rehnquist is no doubt receiving accolades for being Chief Justice of an often very divided court. Now that John Roberts, who appears to be nearly as conservative as Rehnquist, has been nominated Chief, it may help to look at Rehnquist's legacy, which was in many cases characterized by a sharply fractured court where the "conservatives" lost as many battles as the "liberals." This can be a slight consolation to those of us who are worried about the turn the court is taking:

Many commentators are rushing to proclaim William Rehnquist one of the "great" chief justices because of his impact on the Supreme Court. Not so fast. With all due respect to his memory, it is clear that on many important issues, Rehnquist lost the court that bore his name. And during some of the most heated battles, rather than an influential chief rallying the court, Rehnquist was the court's missing man, seeming to watch from the sidelines.
...
Although Rehnquist saw his court make some movements in his direction, they were incremental steps around the edges. The ramparts that Rehnquist assaulted did not fall. His limited successes were far from the legacy of greatness that Rehnquist champions claim.

To give him his due, Rehnquist had a major impact in two important areas -- restrictions on Congress's power and the immunity of state governments from federal law. For the first time since the early New Deal, the Supreme Court rejected laws as beyond Congress's power under the commerce clause, which gives Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce.
...
Even when he was on the winning side, Rehnquist frequently failed to achieve the hallmark of a great chief: an opinion that speaks with clarity and finality on deeply disputed issues. In its best-known opinion, Bush v. Gore , the Rehnquist Court issued a brief unsigned opinion for five justices and a separate, additional opinion by Rehnquist for three of those five justices -- hardly the kind of clear and ringing statement that one would expect in so momentous a case.

Roberts may not have the same leadership style of Rehnquist, and thus he may be more successful than Rehnquist was at winning over people. Part of the reason for Rehnquist's failure to preside over unified decisions is the inevitable divide that's going to exist on a court with three solid conservatives. Still, one has to marvel at Earl Warren's ability to get all nine justices on the side of Brown in the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954. By doing this in Brown as well as getting solid majorities in other controversial opinions in the 1950s and 60s, the Supreme Court bestowed more legitimacy on their decisions. Rehnquist, on the other hand, could not do this.

We may see more of the same with Roberts as Chief Judge, and to be honest, this would not be the worst thing.