Liberal Justices' Divergent Strategies on a Conservative Supreme Court

Key Quotes

"we want to understand not only the legal decisions they're making but we're asking who are these nine people who hold this much power and how do they function together as a body how do they influence one another how does power flow inside the supreme court and we're doing it at a time when the court is deciding these major questions about how much power president trump will have"

Jodi Kantor explains that the reporting aims to uncover the personal dynamics and influence within the Supreme Court, beyond just their legal rulings. This approach is particularly relevant given the court's significant decisions regarding President Trump's power.

"her methodology is to form relationships and look for areas of agreement so she becomes a confidant of chief justice roberts who's part of the conservative majority exactly she also keeps a really close eye on justice kennedy she is following his moods his concerns his inclinations"

The author highlights Justice Kagan's strategic approach to operating within a conservative-majority court. Kagan's method involved building relationships and seeking common ground, even with conservative justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.

"she has clearly found a way to make legal lemonade out of lemons she's getting business done it's an atmosphere in which a deal maker can get some traction and that requires sacrifice by the way it requires discipline because justice kagan did object to some of the court's decisions and she is fully capable of punching hard and there are a couple of decisions in which she lets loose on the court but for the most part she decides that it doesn't serve her mission right"

Jodi Kantor describes Justice Kagan's ability to achieve results even in a challenging environment by compromising and making difficult choices. This approach required discipline, as Kagan sometimes suppressed her stronger objections to maintain her strategy of deal-making.

"the difference between four votes and three votes is more than one the difference is so so so big and jackson comes onto a court where she just knows she's going to be in dissent for much of her career she doesn't feel the same possibility that justice kagan did"

The author explains the significant shift in the court's composition and the impact on Justice Jackson's perspective. Arriving on a 6-3 conservative court, Justice Jackson faces a starkly different reality than Justice Kagan did, with fewer opportunities for liberal justices to influence outcomes.

"she has basically reasoned that on a 6 3 court she's not going to persuade her colleagues and any gains that would be exacted would be so small that they wouldn't be worth the price of staying silent and so in her opinions she's often speaking to the public she's saying you need to know about this i want to raise your awareness i find this troubling"

Jodi Kantor details Justice Jackson's strategic shift towards public communication through her opinions. Justice Jackson believes that on a 6-3 court, persuasion of colleagues is unlikely, so she prioritizes informing the public about the court's decisions and their implications.

"so what we're seeing clearly is both approaches finding their limits in this moment kagan's compromises are getting washed away by the sheer severity of the court's rightward turn and jackson's sharply worded dissents are beginning to alienate the conservatives in a way that might even further marginalize the court's liberals"

The author concludes that both Justice Kagan's compromise-based strategy and Justice Jackson's confrontational approach are facing challenges. Kagan's efforts are being overshadowed by the court's conservative shift, while Jackson's sharp dissents risk alienating the very justices whose votes might be needed for any liberal victories.