[Crackingham]

The main substantive power the Chief has is the ability to assign opinion-writing to a particular justice in a case. That matters but it's not the biggest deal in the world.

Informally, the position offers the much greater possibility of exerting real leadership over the Court. That's up to the individual Chief as to how they actually do that. Historically, some have been total failures. Two former Chiefs who were very successful in turning their positions into strong leadership of the entire Court were John Marshall and Earl Warren. Whether or not Roberts will be able to do that really comes down to own his personal qualities.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Well, after reading Mark Levin's book, Men in Black, I understand why who writes the opinion is important, even dissenting opinion. Which reminds me. If the Chief can assign opinion writing, does that mean he chooses for both the majority and dissenting opinions; or do the dissenting justices pretty much get to do their own thing in that case? And if the Chief is a dissenter, does he still get to pick who writes the majority opinion?