The New Yorker's "After Stevens"

The New Yorker, one of my favorite publications, featured a profile on Justice John Paul Stevens in its March 22, 2010, issue. See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin. All too often, Supreme Court justices are cloaked in mystery. They are held apart from most of society. Part of that separation is necessary -- it helps them focus on the cases as they are presented. It also reduces any pressure to decide a case on alternative grounds. However, I found it interesting that the justices are isolated not only from society, as a whole, but they are also relatively isolated from each other. Having clerked for an appellate judge, I realize that each judge must make his or her own decision and that discussion is limited between the judges. Most of the time, at least in the chambers I have experienced, it is because the judges are simply too busy writing and editing. Additionally, many of the cases had simple issues that could be addressed easily. When a case presented a particularly troubling issue, it was common for the judges to discuss the different principles once a draft had been circulated. According to Jeffrey Toobin's description of the Supreme Court's protocol, the justices rarely interact, and they prefer to send each other memorandums. This is the court that is deciding cases that have come through the Federal court system and been deemed to have enough merit to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Where is the roundtable? I can't help but think that maybe if the justices interacted a little more in person, there might be fewer catty opinions (See Scalia's contribution to the 2008 case Baze v. Rees, Scalia's dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004), and Scalia's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), to name a few). The justices need not agree on all issues, but they should respect one another enough not to launch personal attacks on each other in opinions that are supposed to be addressing Constitutional issues. I think Toobin's article sheds some light on the mystery encircling the justices, and the explanation of how they interact helps explain how some of their opinions are drafted.