The CJ decides who writes the decisions. What else do they do?
IIRC, the CJ only decides who writes majority opinions if the CJ votes with the majority. Otherwise, it is based on seniority, I believe.
> The CJ decides who writes the decisions
and presides over the trial in the Senate in the event of an impeachment.
The CJ decides who writes the decisions on the side he/she is on. The CJ doesn't decide who writes the decisions on the other side of the argument.
IMO, the CJ's chief power is the power of persuasion and the ability to gauge the internal politics of the SupCt. That is why Scalia would be wasted as CJ. He would have to "tone it down."
If he/she is in the majority opinion.
>>The CJ decides who writes the decisions.<<
Depends upon the case. In a 7-2 vote, one of the ones on the bottom obviously isn't going to write the Court's opinion.
Every Justice likely drafts an opinion, and they decide among themselves -- along voting lines -- which one to "sign on to." Often there are issues that want to include, so they write separately. These are called concurrances (sp?) if they support the opinion or judgment of the court. They are separate dissents if they don't. Even those are shopped around looking for other justices to sign onto.
So, you might have a 5-4 opinion of the court, ruled on, for example, by Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquest, O'Conner, and Kennedy. If this were a school prayer case, for example, Scalia might write a concurrance that is joined by Thomas saying that even the opinion of the court -- which he signed on to -- is still a too restrictive view of the Establishment Clause.
Or, in a capital punishment case, Marshall would almost always dissent separately saying capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment -- a view not held even by the other 1-3 dissenters on the case.