In the latest TIME, Reynolds Holding takes U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts to task for pushing his colleagues to reach decisions unanimously.
Holding complains that an increase in 9-0 decisions lessens the possibility of concurrences and dissents that will prove valuable in later years.
All of us can speak more freely, get counsel in a criminal case and keep the police out of our bedrooms because, at some point, maverick Justices stood up to a court majority. Roberts surely knows this, yet he barrels ahead with a campaign for unanimity that is already showing results. Over the past two terms, the number of majority opinions rose from 79 to 81, but the number of dissents dropped from 63 to 60, and concurrences from 61 to 35.
Holding misses the point.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s proper role involves settling legal disputes involving the Constitution. If the court — with its range of political and judicial viewpoints — can agree unanimously on a decision that settles a particular dispute, that decision will prove much more valuable to society than a contentious 5-4 ruling that is guaranteed to stand only as long as the court’s membership remains constant. A 9-0 decision that incorporates the viewpoints of everyone from Ginsburg to Scalia sends a clear message to lawyers and their clients across the country.
Holding’s own numbers show that the Court is still issuing split decisions when the justices cannot reach unanimous agreement. No one should blame the chief justice for trying to limit those splits and increase the clarity of the court’s rulings.
