My career was in business and not law. It may be unfair to compare the two. I'm often dismayed by the low quality work SCOTUS puts out. I'm not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the overall decision. It's the inconsistent use of doctrines (e.g., do or don't consequences matter), the lack of depth of the reasoning, the unwillingness to seriously engage with the dissent's concerns, and the lack of clarity being given to lower courts in the decisions. If you consistently produced such low quality work in the business world, you would put on a performance improvement plan and terminated if the poor work continued.
The Dobb's leak was unfortunate, but it made me wonder if there should be a small, highly qualified and discreet Opinion Review Board that SCOTUS runs its opinions by for feedback and suggested changes before the opinion is released. The Board's role would not be to change the decision but to provide feedback where the opinion could be clearer and provide better clarity to the lower courts and understanding to the public. As examples, the THT test in Bruen was very confusing, the Trump immunity case didn't answer if it's acceptable for the President to have opponents assassinated, Skrmetti was unclear if it okay to use biological differences as substitutes for sex or race discrimination. It's questionable if the Justices have the humility to accept such feedback, but we would all benefit if SCOTUS provided higher quality opinions.
My career was in business and not law. It may be unfair to compare the two. I'm often dismayed by the low quality work SCOTUS puts out. I'm not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with the overall decision. It's the inconsistent use of doctrines (e.g., do or don't consequences matter), the lack of depth of the reasoning, the unwillingness to seriously engage with the dissent's concerns, and the lack of clarity being given to lower courts in the decisions. If you consistently produced such low quality work in the business world, you would put on a performance improvement plan and terminated if the poor work continued.
The Dobb's leak was unfortunate, but it made me wonder if there should be a small, highly qualified and discreet Opinion Review Board that SCOTUS runs its opinions by for feedback and suggested changes before the opinion is released. The Board's role would not be to change the decision but to provide feedback where the opinion could be clearer and provide better clarity to the lower courts and understanding to the public. As examples, the THT test in Bruen was very confusing, the Trump immunity case didn't answer if it's acceptable for the President to have opponents assassinated, Skrmetti was unclear if it okay to use biological differences as substitutes for sex or race discrimination. It's questionable if the Justices have the humility to accept such feedback, but we would all benefit if SCOTUS provided higher quality opinions.