This paper examines the collegial deliberation process among Supreme Court justices, with particular focus on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's pivotal role in shaping judicial outcomes. Drawing on Murphy, Pritchett, and Epstein's Courts, Judges, and Politics, the paper discusses how conference votes are regularly revised through thoughtful exchange of draft opinions and memos. It highlights key cases — including Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Hodgson v. Minnesota, and Missouri v. Blair — to illustrate how collegial dynamics influenced final decisions on abortion rights and criminal procedure. The paper also addresses O'Connor's positions on federalism and judicial consensus, arguing that she favored incremental adjustment over fundamental constitutional reversal.
Conference votes are not chiseled in marble; they are subject to change after the justices read their colleagues' draft opinions. And read them they do — thoroughly and carefully. They write thoughtful memos about these opinions, both in the sense of being considered and in the sense of showing genuine regard for their colleagues' reasoning. All this, of course, confirms what earlier studies have reported.
What Courts, Judges, and Politics makes clear is that changes in outcome between the conference vote and the final decision are far from unusual. Equally impressive are the justices' conscientious — though not always successful — efforts to reach decisions by consensus rather than by simple majority.
Though the cases examined are too few to constitute definitive proof, in a variety of circumstances some justices have more collegial impact than others. Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy are frequent players in shifting outcomes, for instance, while Antonin Scalia is not. But the most striking pattern is the absence of pattern: collegial consultation does not consistently move the Court to the right, to the center, or toward either activism or restraint.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, decided in 1989, brought about the retreat from Chief Justice Rehnquist's initially successful effort to get a majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, and that retreat has proved permanent.
Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990) upheld a parental-notification-with-judicial-bypass restriction on minors' abortion rights. However, its invalidation of a two-parent notification rule — containing O'Connor's first vote to strike down an abortion restriction — has proved to be, in the words of Justice Blackmun's draft Webster dissent, the "Thermidor" for the would-be Rehnquist "revolution" in abortion law.
These cases illustrate how collegial deliberation, particularly O'Connor's pivotal votes, effectively contained what might otherwise have been a more sweeping retrenchment of abortion rights established under Roe v. Wade.
"Collegial pressure derails Fourth Amendment expansion"
"Court legitimacy limits how far challenges can go"
"O'Connor champions states' rights despite federal supremacy"
You’re 37% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.