Let’s review Supreme Court history… see if you can identify the “neutral interpretation” period.

• Marshall, John: Marbury v. Madison, Gibbons v. Ogden, McCullough v. Maryland, Barron v. Baltimore. Uh, nope.
• Taney, Roger B.: Dred Scott. Nope.
• Chase, Salmon P.: Ex parte Milligan, Slaughterhouse Cases. Nope. (I suppose you could give him a point or two for Ex parte McCardle.)
• Waite, Morrison R.: Might be a candidate. He died in 1888, and the court under him didn’t do much.
• Fuller, Mellville: Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York. Double nope.
• White, Edward: Possible: Hammer v. Dagenhart, Schenck v. United States.
• Taft, William H.: Possible: Myers v. U.S., Stafford v. Holland.
• Hughes, Charles E.: “Switch in Time that Saved Nine” era. Not bloody likely.
• Stone, Harlan Fiske: Well, he didn’t last long, but he gave us Korematsu and Ex parte Quirin, so unless you’re Michelle Malkin I’d have to say his court was controversial.
• Vinson, Fred M.: Possible; but he didn’t last long either… Youngstown Steel springs to mind as politically important, though.
• Warren, Earl: Not bloody likely: Brown, Miranda, Gideon, Baker v. Carr… need I go on?
• Burger, Warren: Furman v. Georgia, Gregg v. Georgia, Bakke v. Regents, Buckley v. Valeo, Roe v. Wade. Not a chance.
• Rehnquist, William: Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, Texas v. Johnson, Casey, Grutter v. Bollinger. Not likely.

So, we have three chief justices since 1801 who may have presided over politically neutral courts, and I emphasize may since that’s likely only because I can’t think of any politically-controversial decisions they made.

Sorry, but I don’t buy the idea that there was ever a neutral period… there may have been a period, perhaps, during which the court’s idea of acceptable social policy comported with that of the particular period’s conservatives, perhaps, but not a “neutral” one by any stretch of the imagination.