Sharp dissents attacking colleagues rarely damage the justices’ working relationships

Evidence

If judges may persuade their colleagues to vote with them by the strength of their arguments, they may also threaten to write an opinion attacking the position taken by those who reject their arguments. The effectiveness of this threat generally depends on the judge’s ability to present a persuasive legal argument. As Box 8.3 reveals, judges do not shrink from making stinging attacks on the reasoning of their colleagues or the coherence of their views. Surprisingly, these attacks rarely interfere with working relationships among the justices. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2622

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Conference discussion rarely changes a justice’s vote because format discourages interchange — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1562; Judges threaten opinion attacks but rarely damage collegial relationships — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1337