It would only take one. Roberts was widely seen in the ACA decision to be putting the future standing of the court above partisan considerations and even, arguably, above his own legal reasoning and judicial philosophy. As the Chief Justice his opprobrium would carry extra weight, and as a younger Justice, if he were to threaten resignation, it would be impossible to spin it as a personal decision. I doubt that it will come to that, but if he he had to choose between being remembered as the Chief Justice who saw his court turned into a judicial tontine and toy of the political parties or stepping down in protest, I think it’s quite possible that he would choose the latter.
The current Supreme Court is functioning just fine. Some of the Justices, or all of them, have seen an increase in their workload but nothing they can’t handle. Life, and judicial review, goes on.
So… you’re saying “Hey, my car’s doing fine on three wheels as long as no one sits in the right rear seat. So I shouldn’t make any plans to get a fourth wheel.”…
Ahem, I’m saying that the current Supreme Court is functioning just fine.
I have no idea what’s wrong with your car.
Talk about invoking a certain Monty Python and The Holy Grail bit…You just did it without thinking. “Lemme at him!”
And your evidence for this assertion is what, exactly? The Supreme Court is apparently in dire straits because Thomas has actually started talking during oral argument.
Thomas speaks and you think the sky is falling. Dire straits? Seriously?
The LSM seems to be stunned that Justice Thomas spoke. From the bench? In public? OMG!
When considering cases, the Justices have at their disposal the original case files, the related appellate case files, the writs of certiorari, any amicus briefs, and the Justice’s discussion while in Justices’ Conference. The Justices have all of the information they need to decide a case. The oral argument part of the process is the least useful part of the whole process. IMHO, of course.
“LSM” again? Why don’t you just start a post with “disregard everything I’m saying?” It has the same effect.
So how many cases have you argued before SCOTUS?
Yes, it’s that same LSM again. The very same LSM who are astounded to hear a black Justice speak in his own court. Shocking, absolutely shocking. :smack:
So which part did I get wrong?
Are you suggesting that I do not have standing to discuss this issue on an internet forum? Or are you just attacking the messenger?
I’m just curious about your qualifications for discussing the relative weight of oral argument.
Here we havethe opinion of a few people of authority on the relative value of oral argument. Thomas, Roberts, and Ginsburg:
5%-10% of the cases would be a huge number!
I mean, how many cases do you think are affected by the briefs? I would guess that more than 60% are unaffected by the merits briefing. So if briefing and oral argument are sharing 40%, and oral argument takes up as much as 10%, that’s a pretty big deal.
Imagine if a justice said he didn’t bother to read the briefs because they only affect his decision 10% of the time. Don’t you think he or she would be ridiculed?
Moderator Note
doorhinge, knock off the LSM nonsense. No warning issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I don’t think any justices are saying that they don’t listen to oral arguments because they are not often persuasive. They are simply saying they are not often persuasive. And that 5-10% figure was “generous”, and a guess at his colleague’s inner motivations. 10% would be a significant number.
The statement from **doorhinge **was, “The oral argument part of the process is the least useful part of the whole process.” and I think that’s accurate.
I am actually curious how much the amicus briefs influence decisions. My guess would be very little but I have nothing to base that on. So what are categories of influence? Merits briefing, oral argument, amicus briefings, appellate/trial/district court record… what else am I missing?
Amicus briefs are likely the least persuasive sources. They generally just restate the arguments of the litigants in a way that plays up the interests of the amici. This (admittedly somewhat dated) piece suggests that the court quotes from only 3% of amicus briefs, the vast majority of which are the Solicitor General’s briefs.
Like it or not, the justices’ preexisting views on the issue are bound to influence their votes, and are probably the most important “source” in terms of weight. Scalia was inordinately fond of quoting himself, for example. I suppose you could also count the opinions of other federal courts which considered the same issue, though they are obviously going to make up a substantial portion of the briefs anyway.
The people who write amicus briefs for the big players tend to be former Supreme Court clerks themselves. They will tell you that it depends on the case and the justice in question, but that a handful of groups get all of their amicus briefs read by multiple justices (e.g., ACLU). And the clerks read even more. Occasionally, an opinion quotes or cites an amicus brief, so they clearly have some value (though you could argue that they don’t change the end result, as you could with everything else).
I mean, it depends on how fine-grained you want to get!
[ul]
[li]The judge’s pre-existing opinions on the law[/li][li]The underlying record[/li][li]The persuasiveness of the opinion being reviewed[/li][li]Cert. briefing (which often contains subtle or not-so-subtle merits arguments)[/li][li]Merits briefing[/li][li]Amicus briefing[/li][li]Oral argument[/li][li]Discussion in conference[/li][li]Chambers discussion (i.e., clerks)[/li][li]The process of drafting the opinion[/li][li]Outside research by chambers[/li][li]The importance of the opinion to the court/judge legacy[/li][/ul]
I’m sure it could be broken down further. If you assigned a percentage to each input and oral argument were even 2% that would still make it pretty damn important, IMO. Important enough to participate in, even, and not just listen to.
(post shortened)
Except for the hints in the relatively few interviews given by current or retired Supreme Court Justices pertaining to what actually goes on behind closed doors, I don’t believe any outsiders really knows the importance each Justice places on briefs vs. boxers, (I apologize in advance for that comment) briefs vs. oral arguments vs. Justices’ conference vs. case files vs. whatever.
Each type of court document probably plays different levels of importance to different Justices based on the individual case.
What happens in the Supreme Court’s chambers stays in the Supreme Court’s chambers?
And yet a couple of posts ago you were telling us which were most important.