The joke during Alito's confirmation hearings was that he was "Scalito," a Scalia clone. Yet it's been noted that he frequently splits with his supposed alter-ego.
Today came yet another split, in JAMES v. UNITED STATES (No. 05-9264). At issue was a 15 year sentence under 18 USC 924(e), which imposes mandatory terms on felons in possess who have three priors for "a violent felony or a serious drug offense." The term violent felony is further defined to include burglary, and a catchall provision for any offenses for any crimes that involve a serious risk of violence. The question was whether attempted burglary under Florida law qualifies as a violent felony.
Alito's majority opinion says yes. The common aspects of the listed crimes are not their completion but their potential for violence. Attempted burglary poses nearly the same risk of a violent confrontation as does completed burglary.
Scalia dissents, joined by Stevens and Ginsburg (again illustrating that simple "conservative wing/liberal wing" breakdowns of the Court often don't work). The catch-all clause is ambiguous. How much similarity is required? Burglary itself is the least risky of the crimes enumerated (others include arson and extortion). Attempted burglary presumably is less risky than the least risky crime listed.