I learned a long time ago that “consensus” just means manipulation for a lot of people.
9 justices. They should each think. They could discuss (a little). They can vote. The side with more than 4 votes wins. It’s easy.
OR
You can talk and talk and talk and talk and talk until your side wears down the other side and you win. The talking doesn’t stop until you win.
I’ve seen many people do this. Standard Liberal tactic. The fans of “consensus” think this is the best approach.
Consensus eventually becomes “Groupthink”.
consensus??? Sounds to me like if you get consensus in the Supreme Court, that you will get decisions which will not be strong conservative opinions.
Consensus sounds like a concept which should be reserved for the legislative process. At the Supreme Court? Well, either a law is constitutional or it isn’t. Either some law or policy violates someone’s constitutional rights or it doesn’t.
How the heck do you come up with compromise among conservative and liberal justices on such subjects, given the task of the courts are not to be legislatures but to render opinions on the legality or constitutionality of issues???