Reddit reviews In Chambers: Stories of Supreme Court Law Clerks and Their Justices (Constitutionalism and Democracy)

> I'd be very surprised to hear that a justice has his or her mind completely made up from the outset of every single case. Some or most cases, maybe, yes.

This is because the Justices are necessarily generalists. Orin Kerr has a really fascinating interview about how the idea that a Justice can just decide his or her ideology can get them from point A to point B is pretty much an illusion in a vast majority of cases.

> Perhaps I am an optimist, but I imagine most of the justices do order their clerks to conduct a metric fuckton of research on the merits of the arguments of both the appellant and appellee.

Speaking as a former, non-SCOTUS clerk, I can tell you that the briefing of the parties matters a ton more than independent research by clerks. You'd never have enough time. And from a judicial economy sense, it's clear why: the parties (especially at that level) have likely turned over 99% of the rocks to make the best case on the appellate issue before the Court. You're so unlikely to discover something new.

And, from reports of clerks (also this one) delays in getting opinions have less to do with research and writing and more about consensus building. You'll almost always find that the briefs share a great deal with the briefing of some party (or amicus). Deviations occur where there's a negotiated middle ground.

Over half of Rehnquist's clerks went to school outside of the T14. This was a rule of his and a deliberate effort to correct an imbalance he disliked.

http://www.amazon.com/In-Chambers-Justices-Constitutionalism-Democracy/dp/081393401X

Great book with plenty of wonderful stats for those curious about efforts to penetrate the illuminati status of the Supreme Court.