Inside the Supreme Court’s Risky New Way of Doing Business – The New York Times
Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the court’s now-routine “shadow docket” rulings on presidential power.
This is important.
@JimRain I think the history of why things work the way they do and how/when it changes is very important to understand. I learned something I didn’t know before and I believe others will too. Thus, important.
@patrickrhone Fair points. But I dislike how The TImes frames this as “secretive” and “risky.” I’m not crazy about the “Shadow Docket,” and it’s undermined the Court’s authority in the eyes of the public, which is bad. But I think in most instances, SCOTUS has used it as a kind of “standstill” order for cases where (1) letting the issue play out pending a final decision probably will be harmful, and (2) there’s a better-than-even-chance that the final ruling will be in line with the temporary relief granted. (Which is what SCOTUS did in the Obama EPA case.) I think whether or not that seems risky or reasonable depends on whether or not one likes the outcome.
@JimRain Fair. Like I said, for me it’s the history of how/why that appeals and I feel important to know/understand. Also, the behind the scenes of how the Justices operate and communicate that we rarely get to see.
@patrickrhone Not to beat a dead horse, but this analysis by Jack Goldsmith does a better job that I did of highlighting what I think are problems with the NYTimes article on the Shadow Docket. You might find it interesting. (Or you might not!)
@JimRain Thank goodness for Goldsmith bringing the regular sanity on this stuff. I also thought Sarah Isgur did a good job contextualizing with Ross D recently.
@ablerism Speaking of Sarah Isgur, I gotta say that Last Branch Standing
- Isn’t what I was expecting.
- It was quite entertaining anyway.
She is a force to be reckoned with.
@ablerism Agreed. I will listen to Isgur/Douthout soon. (Still digesting his conversation with Ben Sasse.)