[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

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I sure would like to see a case brought which would challenge the objectivity of journalism and, on that basis, delegitimate first McConnell v. FEC and ultimately Buckley v. Valeo

[kevkrom]

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.

I've seen past opinions, typically dissents, by Scalia where he engages in sarcasm against the "liberal" reasoning of the other side. In this case, however, he completely dispensed with sarcasm, and basically just blasts Stevens and Breyer -- is this an indication of the heatedness of this specific case, or is it a more fundamental division between the two main "wings" of the Court?