I thought each Justice was supposed to consider the legal merits of the case independently, render an opinion, and the majority opinion would be written. There isn’t supposed to be a meeting where they reach “consensus.”
I recall with some amusement many decades ago when four of us "far-right-wing" Republican Womens' Club ladies living in a conservative county outside of Chicago decided to covertly infiltrate two meetings of our local League of Women voters... and report back to our club.
We did so and later I did a write-up of our findings for a private nationally-circulated conservative newsletter I was writing at the time. Our eyes were really opened....though we were not at all surprised. We knew a lot about how the League operated, and we wanted to sit in on a couple meetings as benign "spies" to see and hear for ourselves.
In a nutshell, and contrary to their organization's name, the League ladies never "vote" on whether or not to publicly support or oppose a local or national issue. They discuss, then take a verbal "consensus"...always ending up on the liberal/socialist/more-government side, of course.
Preparatory information and propaganda on the issue is pre-sent to the chapter heads by the national organization headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Discussion is led and fed by the chapter leader and at the right time, an oral "consensus" is taken.
Beware of the word "consensus", especially when mouthed by a Supreme Court Justice. The word is not your friend. It's a synonym for controlled "group think". Remember, liberals and leftists don't like individualists, just "groups, masses and "common good".
We didn't call the organization "The League of Women Vipers" for nothing at the time of our undercover mission...and that's what I still call this anti-freedom bunch today.
Leni