Judicial-legislative relations operate as implicit negotiation rather than pure conflict.

Evidence

After all, the potential for legislative intervention may itself act as a constraint on judicial decisions. Still, it would be a mistake to view the relations between state courts and legislators as simply conflictual. Most judicial decisions interpreting the common law provoke no response from legislators. Judicial decisions and legislative responses or non-responses can be viewed as a form of implicit negotiation, through which judges and legislators both seek to leave their mark on the common law. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3539

Categorization

• SEED: Essay angle: ‘Implicit Negotiation’ — reframing court-legislature relations as bargaining without a table, with non-response as a form of consent.
• XREF: Dovetails with the course’s framing of the judiciary as one institution among several that jointly make law. — connects to: Binding consultation requires concrete preference-communicating institutions, not rulers’ claims to embody the will. — Charles Tilly, Regimes and Repertoires, 167