General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Really Well Insulated Attic -- Joyce Vance
https://joycevance.substack.com/p/a-really-well-insulated-atticThe attic they are referring to is the U.S. Supreme Court. A Court that is increasingly viewed in some corners as having abandoned the role Article III of the Constitution assigns to it, to act as a check and balance on the executive branch. But the concerns the judges expressed were about the process the Supreme Court is using to make decisions. The reporting was not an inquiry into either the substance of the high courts rulings or the politics behind it all.
Its all about the shadow docket, a term youre familiar with if you read Civil Discourse. Its a slightly snarky term coined by legal academics to refer to the Courts emergency docket, which is used for time-sensitive issues, like last-minute requests to stay executions in death penalty cases. The Court also hears appeals involving emergency civil relief on this docket. That means that cases where pro-democracy lawyers seek injunctions to block some of the most egregious steps this administration is taking land, with increasing frequency, on the shadow docket, and thats where they get decided.
. . .
Apparently, its frustrating for judges in lower courts as well. After all, they are being called upon to apply the Supreme Courts decisions. Shadow docket rulings are precedent that lower courts must follow. But how do you apply something when there is no explanation for why it happened? Thats the position the lower courts are in and its what led 12 federal judges to take the unprecedented step of speaking anonymously to an NBC reporter about whats going on at the Supreme Court.
The reporting characterized it like this:
Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.
And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges decisions with little to no explanation.
. . .

House of Roberts
(6,216 posts)and conservatives hate accountability.
AllaN01Bear
(27,311 posts)Not interrogating both the substance and politics of the high court's rulings *at this time* is completely insane.
BurnDoubt
(1,001 posts)I hope McConnell has to sit next to Kraznov it in Hell.
Best Judiciary money can buy.
returnee
(638 posts)it should not be considered precedent. Period.
erronis
(21,204 posts)And Roberts and his fellow travelers aren't really thinking about any long-term need for a supreme court. They're putting themselves out of business on purpose, and will rely on some nice rich people to take care of their personal futures.
Well, theres explained well, tortured explanation (done on purpose), poorly explained, for just a few examples. Then theres not at all explained, which is how I understand the shadow docket. The latter is what Im talking about. The meaning of the ruling is crucial to the ruling. No meaning, no ruling, no precedent.
As was explained in the OP, the shadow docket is generally for emergencies and speed. This does not relieve the court of its duty to explain how the law or principle theyre using to justify their ruling can be elaborated upon at a later, hopefully early date.
erronis
(21,204 posts)by the affected parties, then it seems there can't be a supported explanation for the ruling other than "This is what We want."