[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Here are some of the charges leveled by the Opinion against the Dissents: “Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition [First Amendment] is ‘primarily collective in nature.’ ” “Justice Stevens flatly misreads the historical record.” “Justice Stevens suggests that ‘there is not so much as a whisper’ in [Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution] ... that favors the individual-rights view.... That is wrong.’

The thing I notice in this discussion is the implication that the final configuration of the Opinion and the Dissents is arrived at collaboratively - the Opinion speaks confidently as to the exact nature of each of the Dissents. Has that always been routine?

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes, this is normal procedure. The authorship of the Opinion and the Dissent are established when the cases are actually decided, in the Friday conference on all cases argued that week. Then, as the weeks and months pass, the proposed Opinion and Dissent are circulated among the Justices for comment and review.

According to the book, The Brethren, there was exactly one instance when the circulation of opinions caused one Justice to change his mind, which resulted in a change in the whole verdict from 5-4 one way, to 5-4 the other way.

Especially when the divisions among the Justices are very strong, and their criticisms are particularly harsh, you will see cross references like those in Heller. Think of two children squabbling in a sand box, "Did so. Did not. Did so." Now, give both of them advanced degrees and huge vocabularies. What you get is what you see in Heller.

John / Billybob