influence may be limited by circumstances and the associate justices' understanding of legal principles; it is definitely limited by the fact that they have only a single vote of nine on the decision whether to grant or deny certiorari. Despite the chief justice's elevated stature, their vote carries the same legal weight as the vote of each associate justice. Additionally, they have no legal authority to overrule the verdicts or interpretations of the other eight judges or tamper with them. The task of assigning who shall write the opinion for the majority falls to the most senior justice in the majority. Thus, when the chief justice is in the majority, they always assign the opinion. Early in his tenure, Chief Justice John Marshall insisted upon holdings which the justices could unanimously back as a means to establish and build the court's national prestige. In doing so, Marshall would often write the opinions himself and actively discouraged dissenting opinions. Associate Justice William Johnson eventually persuaded Marshall and the rest of the court to adopt its present practice: one justice writes an opinion for the majority, and the rest are free to write their own separate opinions or not, whether concurring or dissenting. The chief justice's formal prerogative—when in the majority—to assign which justice will write the court's opinion is perhaps their most influential power, as this enables them to influence the historical record. They may assign this task to the individual justice best able to hold together a fragile coalition, to an ideologically amenable colleague, or to themselves. Opinion authors can have a large influence on the content of an opinion; two justices in the same majority, given the opportunity, might write very different majority opinions. A chief justice who knows the associate justices well can therefore do much—by the simple act of selecting the justice who writes the opinion of the court—to affect the general character or tone of an opinion, which in turn can affect the interpretation of that opinion in cases before lower courts in the years to come. The chief justice chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and tentatively voted on by the justices. They normally speak first and so have influence in framing the discussion. Although the chief justice votes first—the court votes in order of seniority—they may strategically pass in order to ensure membership in the majority if desired. It is reported that: Presidential