3 ms·

Probably, but it's hard to predict what kind of negotiations the judges do to come to specific outcomes. SCOTUS isn't an apolitical body despite how it would li

Probably, but it's hard to predict what kind of negotiations the judges do to come to specific outcomes. SCOTUS isn't an apolitical body despite how it would like to be viewed, both in terms of the idealogical bent of the court AND the horse trading that naturally happens because these are colleagues who have to work repeatedly over a long period of time.

avmich 2y ago
Both reasons are not what's supposed to happen in the institution.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Why do you say that? They battled FDR over the New Deal for example which was more political than any kind of principled analysis of the law. Here's an article from 2023 alluding to negotiations within the court [1] > decisions issued this month have shown several cross-ideological alliances and likely reflected negotiations among small factions. Not sure where you get that this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, negotiation is expected largely because you'd think that judges would sacrifice their personal politics to enact decisions or communicate them in a way to strengthen the overall institution. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backchannel-affirmative-action-namby-pambies/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backch...
  - daveguy 2y ago
    Negotiation, "I'll give you this for that", is very different from legal argument, "This is my interpretation of the law, and I will explain why it is correct." Some may call that negotiation of opinion, but I think there is an important distinction. I seriously doubt they are doing the former.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      That's effectively the judges arguing merits amongst themselves. I would actually think this a good thing. "I'll give you a paid vacation in a posh RV and flights on a private jet" is absolutely a totally different animal.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
daveguy 2y ago
Arguing about correct interpretation of the law with colleagues is absolutely not the same thing as "horse trading" and I doubt much of that goes on. There is usually a majority opinion and a minority opinion and sometimes 3 or more opinions. "horse trading" would be considered beneath the court by every justice and negotiating rather than arguing your case would be considered the pinnacle of unprofessionalism.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  I'm not talking about arguing about the interpretation of the law. I'm talking about things like negotiating what arguments go into a majority opinion and which are left for a minority, which case gets picked to be heard. Potentially even settling how a close decision might break by negotiating for joining one side or the other to get specific wording.

avmich 2y ago

Both reasons are not what's supposed to happen in the institution.

vlovich123 2y ago
Why do you say that? They battled FDR over the New Deal for example which was more political than any kind of principled analysis of the law. Here's an article from 2023 alluding to negotiations within the court [1] > decisions issued this month have shown several cross-ideological alliances and likely reflected negotiations among small factions. Not sure where you get that this isn't supposed to happen. Indeed, negotiation is expected largely because you'd think that judges would sacrifice their personal politics to enact decisions or communicate them in a way to strengthen the overall institution. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backchannel-affirmative-action-namby-pambies/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/supreme-court-backch...
- daveguy 2y ago
  Negotiation, "I'll give you this for that", is very different from legal argument, "This is my interpretation of the law, and I will explain why it is correct." Some may call that negotiation of opinion, but I think there is an important distinction. I seriously doubt they are doing the former.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    That's effectively the judges arguing merits amongst themselves. I would actually think this a good thing. "I'll give you a paid vacation in a posh RV and flights on a private jet" is absolutely a totally different animal.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

daveguy 2y ago

Arguing about correct interpretation of the law with colleagues is absolutely not the same thing as "horse trading" and I doubt much of that goes on. There is usually a majority opinion and a minority opinion and sometimes 3 or more opinions. "horse trading" would be considered beneath the court by every justice and negotiating rather than arguing your case would be considered the pinnacle of unprofessionalism.

vlovich123 2y ago
I'm not talking about arguing about the interpretation of the law. I'm talking about things like negotiating what arguments go into a majority opinion and which are left for a minority, which case gets picked to be heard. Potentially even settling how a close decision might break by negotiating for joining one side or the other to get specific wording.