SCOTUS Shadow Docket Abuse

[hal2kilo]

I'm opening this thread for what appears to be a recurring issue with the SCOTUS. The majority doesn't even need to explain itself apparently. So, I propose as this new feature of the SCOTUS continues to be abused, this is the place to document it.

I seems we shouldn't know what crap gets thrown into our water supplies anymore.
Supreme Court’s Stealth Attack on the Clean Water Act Was Too Extreme for John Roberts – Mother Jones

Now the Supreme Court has agreed and revived the Trump rule—though we don’t know why, because the five-justice majority did not deign to explain its action. This silence left Justice Elena Kagan to issue a bewildered dissent, joined by the chief justice along with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan pointed out that, by law, the Supreme Court can issue this kind of stay “ in extraordinary circumstances,” when there is “an exceptional need for immediate relief,” including evidence of “irreparable harm.”

 

[brycejones]

This is no longer the Roberts court. He wants a fig leaf of institutional consistency but the other 5 conservatives led by Thomas have decided the just don't give a fuck. I'm not even sure Roberts disagree with the outcome in the case, but just the process which he rightfully identifies as continuing to undermine the legitimacy of the court.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm opening this thread for what appears to be a recurring issue with the SCOTUS. The majority doesn't even need to explain itself apparently. So, I propose as this new feature of the SCOTUS continues to be abused, this is the place to document it.

I seems we shouldn't know what crap gets thrown into our water supplies anymore.
Supreme Court’s Stealth Attack on the Clean Water Act Was Too Extreme for John Roberts – Mother Jones

Now the Supreme Court has agreed and revived the Trump rule—though we don’t know why, because the five-justice majority did not deign to explain its action. This silence left Justice Elena Kagan to issue a bewildered dissent, joined by the chief justice along with Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan pointed out that, by law, the Supreme Court can issue this kind of stay “ in extraordinary circumstances,” when there is “an exceptional need for immediate relief,” including evidence of “irreparable harm.”

I saw a good idea about this the other day, which was that Biden should ignore these rulings, saying the executive views decisions on regulatory matters such as these that take place without briefing, argument, or a written opinion as advisory opinions only.

The emergency (shadow) docket has a place for rulings that are truly emergencies but now it's just being used for conservatives to craft policy. If SCOTUS wants to be a political branch then Biden should push back politically.

 

[zinfamous]

I saw a good idea about this the other day, which was that Biden should ignore these rulings, saying the executive views decisions on regulatory matters such as these that take place without briefing, argument, or a written opinion as advisory opinions only.

The emergency (shadow) docket has a place for rulings that are truly emergencies but now it's just being used for conservatives to craft policy. If SCOTUS wants to be a political branch then Biden should push back politically.

Biden should just go ahead and order an extension built to the bench and 4 new seats added, get it done over the weekend when the building is empty and just have the justices informed of the update when they return to work and see the new spots ready to be filled within weeks.

 

[sportage]

Well apparently republicans on the court are just fine with turning this court into yet another political tool of Trump ideology. I do believe this is the plan or should I say the plot. Since the court refused to get involved with THE BIG LIE, it is only natural that Trump would attack and disgrace the court into a nothing. The loss of all credibility. But to discredit the court doesn't need Donald Trump, Donald Trump's control is already in place via Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas. We mustn't forget Thomas. No, Trump did not put Thomas on the court however Thomas had no trouble with becoming a full on Trumpie.

Frankly, I'm surprised Kagan and Sotomayor just don't resign in protest and walk away. Now to do THAT would absolutely prove this court as a worthless piece of Trump shit. A nothing court. A court neither SUPREME nor HIGH but only a court of shit politics.

How can anyone ever respect future decisions from this court? How can people not laugh histerically every time this court hands down a ruling? Again, I say the best course of action and protest would be for Kagan and Sotomayor to simply walk away.

 

[hal2kilo]

nm

 

[Moonbeam]

Justice and conservative ideology are incompatible.

 

[Amol S.]

Is there a way to declare a SCOTUS ruling as prejudice, and make the prejudice judges loose their jobs? If so, we might not need more seats in the SCOTUS.

 

[brycejones]

Is there a way to declare a SCOTUS ruling as prejudice, and make the prejudice judges loose their jobs? If so, we might not need more seats in the SCOTUS.

The only option to remove a justice is impeachment. It isn’t happening.

 

[trenchfoot]

And there you have it folks, exactly what the GOP heads of state and their big business benefactors via McConnell wanted from those sock puppets they stuffed into the Supreme Court.

Expanding the Supreme Court seems to be the only way to head off what McConnell engineered into a Corporate owned Court beholden not to the people, but to a few oligarchs who corrupted the Court with people who are, in all ways, grafted branches from the Corporate Mother Tree of America.

Next up, the religious right's majority in the Supreme Court is going to inject their very own version of how they theologically interpret The Constitution and the BOR, just like how so many backwoods clergy interpret the Bible to suit their own agendas, exploiting their flock of fools who lay their trust in these charlatans.

Here is all the proof you need to see that Satan is in the Churches and doing one hell of a job of it.

 

[Pens1566]

Court should be at 13 seats anyway, to match the # of fed circuits. Hell, one of the new ones can be Lady G's favorite from SC as well.

 

[hal2kilo]

Is there a way to declare a SCOTUS ruling as prejudice, and make the prejudice judges loose their jobs? If so, we might not need more seats in the SCOTUS.

I'm hoping that Biden crosses a line and puts out an EO to void the SCOTUS head long effort to reject Roe V Wade. This will be fun!

 

[soulcougher73]

Biden should just go ahead and order an extension built to the bench and 4 new seats added, get it done over the weekend when the building is empty and just have the justices informed of the update when they return to work and see the new spots ready to be filled within weeks.

Wouldnt the next GOP president just do the same? Add enough seats to get the majority back? Then just on and on as the POTUS changes parties? Pretty soon we'd have like 100 justices with each party always trying to get the majority back?

 

[fskimospy]

Wouldnt the next GOP president just do the same? Add enough seats to get the majority back? Then just on and on as the POTUS changes parties? Pretty soon we'd have like 100 justices with each party always trying to get the majority back?

Sure, that could happen but how is that not better than what we have now? If nothing else it would expose the obviously political nature of the court for what it is.

Second, expanding the court should be thought of as a political strategy. First, it weakens the judicial branch which is important to do as it is entirely out of control. Second, it imposes costs on Republicans for stealing SCOTUS seats. Third, it creates an incentive to compromise - add two seats as payback for Merrick Garland. Then offer to deal - if they don't want to deal add two more. If they want to add seats back when they get a chance, fine.

 

[ElFenix]

Wouldnt the next GOP president just do the same? Add enough seats to get the majority back? Then just on and on as the POTUS changes parties? Pretty soon we'd have like 100 justices with each party always trying to get the majority back?

Good

Sure, that could happen but how is that not better than what we have now? If nothing else it would expose the obviously political nature of the court for what it is.

Second, expanding the court should be thought of as a political strategy. First, it weakens the judicial branch which is important to do as it is entirely out of control. Second, it imposes costs on Republicans for stealing SCOTUS seats. Third, it creates an incentive to compromise - add two seats as payback for Merrick Garland. Then offer to deal - if they don't want to deal add two more. If they want to add seats back when they get a chance, fine.