Justice Roberts Sends Strong Message of Supreme Court Unity
May 26, 2006As a practicing lawyer who reads many Supreme Court cases every year, I know the frustration of trying to draw guidance from decisions by a fractured Court.
Such decisions may not only entail a 5-4 ruling, but also be embellished with a variety of concurrences and dissents (often with respect to only certain parts of the majority opinion).
I got an inkling during the Roberts confirmation hearings that one of his goals would be to seak more unanimity.
Now, we get this, reported in Andrew Cohen’s “Bench Conference” colum in the Washinton Post:
Good for United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who told the graduating class at Georgetown Law School yesterday that he and his fellow Justices ought to strive for more consensus in their rulings and fewer 5-4 nail-biters.“Division should not be artificially suppressed,” Roberts told the students (as reported by the New York Times), “but the rule of law benefits from a broader agreement. The broader the agreement among the justiices, the more likely it is a decision on the narrowest possible grounds.”
I like the first part, broader agreement, better than the “narrowest possible grounds” part.
I know the latter is part of the Court’s tradition, but it can be frustrating trying to draw guidance, even from a unanimous opinion, when it is written so narrowly as to appear applicable only to the case’s peculiar facts.
Washington Post: “John the Sublime”
Related Posts
Arizona Supreme Court limits employment arbitration
Supreme Court Implies Retaliation Prohibition Twice in One Day
Supreme Court Limits Public Employee Equal Protection Claims
Illinois Supreme Court narrowly construes state employee personnel code whistleblower retaliation provision as not creating private right of action
Supreme Court Votes to Allow Citation to Unpublished Opinions in Federal Courts
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.
Comment by Jeff Hunter
Perhaps he means that division should be naturally surpressed? Maybe articifical supression would be brow beating, but natural supression would be procedural in nature (in order to deal with the courts case load, etc.)? The rule of law would indeed be made easier by such clarity, but the law itself can still be as (if not more) troubling.
Great blog George. Thanks for your contribution.
Comment by George Lenard
I think this is a leadership style issue. If this is one of the key goals of a Chief Justice, the situation can be improved without “browbeating.”
If a Chief justice’s leadership style is to always try to get a majority, even if a slim one, for his viewpoint (perhaps the case with Rehnquist, I don’t know), that will be reflected in the opinions.
If the style is to seek unanimity or larger majorities, and avoid those confusing partial concurrences and partial dissents, even if the result is not 100% in accord with the Chief’s viewpoint, that will be reflected in the opinions.