Do Supreme Court Justices debate cases with each other?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Some justices would like the court to be doing even more: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/29/supreme-courts-right-wing-wants-more-cases/

[Dangerosa]

@Polycarp

A good justice is, among other things, a consensus builder – someone who knows his colleagues’ views and writes with an eye to bringing them into his majority. Taft, Warren, Hughes, Harlan the younger, and Brennan were all past masters at this. I’m not sure who if anyone on today’s court is in their league as consensus builder.

It was mentioned in some of the articles on the retirement of Stevens that he has been filling that role

[The_Second_Stone]

@md2000

I suspect one reason why they would debate with excahnged opinions and drafts is because the complexity and preciseness of the rulings calls for long arguments and very exact wording. Not something you’d want to try to argue off the top of your head, even with decades of experience.

While I have limited sympathy for Clarence Thomas’s general position on issues, I do have to wonder about the claims against him during the hearings; normally a sexually harrassing bully is a pattern of behaviour that (a) is not isolated behaviour and (b) is most often expressed against the more helpless victims in his environment. That his sole major victim is a fairly well-educated lawyer on the way up the ladder is surprising; there should have been a huge parade of ex-secretaries and ex-clerks and receptionists, etc. to testify to the same or worse about him. If the charges were essentially fabricated or strongly misconstrued (to give Anita Hill some benefit of the doubt) then no wonder Thomas had a strong traumatic reaction and has a reluctance to say anything in public.

And yet several women said they were harassed by him. Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia