[mwl1]

Say you are the leader of nine persons. You get to choose who decides where to have dinner. Do you think that the person to whom you appoint to make this decision might either favorably or adversely affect others in the group?

[maryz]

I had the same question as Dianna, and I'm afraid I don't understand your analogy. I thought the justices all got copies of papers submitted; certainly they all hear the lawyers argue and get to question them.

Does your analogy refer to incoming cases and the process by which the USSC decides whether to hear them? I'm not sure how that works anyway.

[Dianna]

Say you are the leader of nine persons. You get to choose who decides where to have dinner. Do you think that the person to whom you appoint to make this decision might either favorably or adversely affect others in the group?

Well, sure. But you'd never talk me into sushi. LOL!

I guess I just think of the decisions they make as fairly clear cut, ideologically. The only ones that are not predictable are O'Connor and Kennedy and that's because they're not faithful to one set of ideals.