Supreme Court voting procedure

[Margo Schlanger]

I vaguely remember from the two years I clerked (OT 93, OT94), that
occasionally one or more of the justices would "pass," and wait till
they had heard from their colleagues before voting.  

Margo



_____________________
Margo Schlanger
Professor of Law
Washington University in St. Louis
One Brookings Drive
Campus Box 1120
St. Louis, MO  63130
(314) 935-8242
mschlanger at wulaw.wustl.edu
http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Schlanger/index.shtml

>>> "Richard D. Friedman" <rdfrdman at umich.edu> 3/23/2005 7:09:41 PM
>>>
Very interesting.  Frankly, I'm surprised that the Court would follow a

procedure in which votes are cast before every member has had a chance
to 
have a say.  Not even faculties do that.

Rich

At 06:52 PM 3/23/2005, Jeffrey Segal wrote:
>Rehnquist writes in his 1987 book, "For many years there has
circulated a
>tale that although the discussion in conference proceeds in order from
the
>Chief Justice to the junior justice, the voting actually begins with
the
>junior justice and proceeds back to the Chief Justice in order of
>seniority. I can testify that, at least during my fifteen years on
the
>Court, this tale is very much a myth."
>
>In a letter to Professor Robert Bradley reprinted in the Fall 1989 Law
and
>Courts Newsletter (and also in part in The Supreme Court and the
>Attitudinal Model, p. 211), Rehnquist writes that Brennan "confirms
that
>since he came to the Court in the fall of 1956, the procedure has been
as I
>describe it to you." (i.e., one step from senior to junior).
>
>I also note that Saul Brenner and Jan Palmer have an unpublished
manuscript
>on the topic.
>
>The question of why the senior justices would give up the privilege
of
>speaking first and voting last is a good one, one that I don't have
an
>answer to. But if we believe Scalia's comment that "not very much
>conferencing goes on" in conference, then dividing the process in two
>wouldn't carry much of an advantage.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Jeff
>
>Jeffrey Segal
>Distinguished Professor and Chair
>Department of Political Science
>Stony Brook University
>Stony Brook, NY 11794
>phone 631-632-7662
>fax 631-632-4116
>jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu 
>http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/jsegal/ 
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:45:36 -0500
>From: "Richard D. Friedman" <rdfrdman at umich.edu>
>Subject: Supreme Court voting procedure
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20050322174130.04096ec8 at r.imap.itd.umich.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>At least into the 1940s, though discussion of cases at Supreme Court
>conferences went from senior justice to junior justice, voting then
went
>from junior to senior.  Beginning no later than the 1970s, I believe,
the
>voting as well as the discussion has gone from senior to junior; I'm
not
>even sure if there are two separate rounds.  Can anyone tell me when
the
>custom changed -- and better yet why and how?  Thanks!
>
>Rich Friedman
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as

>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are

>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.