SCOTUS power grab: "shadow docket" shenanigans

[Winehole23]

The University of Chicago law professor Will Baude coined the term “shadow docket” in 2015 to describe that part of the justices’ workload that is resolved through summary orders, rather than lengthy opinions after multiple rounds of briefing and oral argument. Like all courts, the Supreme Court has always had what’s known as an orders list that is mostly used for anodyne case management issues.


But recent years have seen a significant uptick in the volume of “shadow docket” rulings that are resolving matters beyond those issues, especially orders changing the effect of lower-court rulings while they are appealed. Indeed, Friday night’s injunction was at least (https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1380838699605311491?s=20) the 20th time (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/020121zr_2dq3.pdf) since the court’s term began last October that the justices have issued a shadow docket ruling altering the status quo. And the more substantive work that the justices carry out through such (usually) unsigned and unexplained orders, the more the “shadow docket” raises concerns about the transparency of the court’s decision making, if not the underlying legitimacy of its decisions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/opinion/supreme-court-religion-orders.html

[Winehole23]

For decades, the Supreme Court has insisted that these emergency injunctions should be far rarer than stays. Summarizing the precedents, Justice Antonin Scalia explained in 1986 (https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1381409204498485254?s=20) that such relief should be granted “sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances, and only where the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” It ought to follow that newly minted rights, such as the one the court articulated on Friday, are not “indisputably clear.”


This is not just a technical point; it goes directly to the Supreme Court’s constitutionally mandated (and self-described) role in our constitutional system. As Justice Scalia put it, unlike a stay, which is a short-term order delaying a proceeding, an injunction “does not simply suspend judicial alteration of the status quo but grants judicial intervention that has been withheld by lower courts.”

To provide relief in such a case where the right to relief is not clear is to effectively allow the Supreme Court to go first, ahead of the lower courts — never mind that, as the justices have repeatedly said in the past, “ours is a court of review, not first view,” and that their “primary responsibility” is “as an appellate tribunal.” Using emergency orders pending appeal to change substantive law turns those principles on their heads and arguably exceeds the justices’ statutory authority to issue such relief.

[boutons_deux]

The corrupt, politicized whore SCOTUS 6 judges are ACTIVIST-ly overstepping their Constitutional role.

This has been the fascist Capitalists' strategic objective for 40 years.

Now the Capitalists finally have 6 non "squishy" hard-right whores to legislate and rule from SCOTUS and other Federal benches.

Like classic fascists, the Capitalists can now bypass democratically elected legislature which too unreliable, unpredictable.

And "shadow docket" is done in the shadows, no chance for review or appeal.

America is more and more fucked and unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

A+ for consistency

Have exactly one take and repeat it endlessly.

[DMC]

Boots is no doubt on a watch list.

[boutons_deux]

A+ for consistency

Have exactly one take and repeat it endlessly.

My takes are on point, Big Picture, and very simple, which is why they apply to so many situations, while you mofos wallow aimlessly, confused by situations that you can't see fit into The Big Picture.

[Trainwreck2100]

Boots is no doubt on a watch list.

we're all on a watch list for just being here

[DMC]

we're all on a watch list for just being here

Well they're not exactly doing a bang up job monitoring it, based purely on the results of late nationwide.