After we’ve heard oral argument we’ll come back to this conference room and discuss it with the other justices. Whoever’s had the case assigned to their chambers will start the discussion and explain how they think the case should be decided and why; and then we go around, by seniority, and everybody gives their opinion. That’s when we do the discussion of the case. So, the first conference after oral argument is the best opportunity to find out where the other justices are – what their position is vis a vis, how you think the case should come out and then, try to accommodate it if you can or understand that there will be a dissent. There may be people who are not quite on board yet with the way I think a decision should come out and they’ll wait to see what my first draft looks like when I send it out into circulation. After conference then the dialog goes on in writing
Then I go back to chambers and talk to the clerk again – it’s exactly like we decided it or we need to go heavier on this point or we don’t have to address that point, nobody wants to go there… and then, her job is to craft a first draft or I’ll craft a first draft and we’ll trade – back and forth for editing purposes. I’d have to say, at least for myself, and I think this has to be true of the other justices here: the great amount of work goes into the post-argument process because that involves greater care of writing the decisions, doing further research, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment