General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoberts Has Lost Control of the Supreme Court
Link to tweet
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html
No paywall
https://archive.ph/YXbF4
*snip*
But far more than ever before, the court is using procedural orders on applications for emergency relief while appeals work their way through the courts to resolve disputes affecting the lives of millions of Americans whether in blocking a rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on a vaccination mandate for large employers, refusing to block Texas ban on most abortions after six weeks or putting back into effect congressional district maps that two Alabama lower courts struck down as violating the Voting Rights Act.
Time and again, the justices are ordering lower courts to treat these decisions as precedents even when, as in last weeks ruling, the order includes no analysis to apply to other cases, which often makes the precedent difficult for lower courts to apply.
Unsurprisingly, these rulings have provoked increasingly strident dissents from the courts liberal justices. Last September, when the justices refused, by a 5-to-4 vote, to halt the patently unconstitutional Texas abortion law, Justice Kagan criticized the majority not just for the substance of its ruling but also for what that ruling said about the shadow docket. She wrote, The majoritys decision is emblematic of too much of this courts shadow-docket decision making which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend.
Last week, by freezing a district court injunction despite a lack of evidence that it was harming the complaining states, the majority once again defied the requirements for the very emergency relief they granted. Justice Kagan wrote that that renders the courts emergency docket not for emergencies at all but rather only another place for merits determinations except made without full briefing and argument. In other words, the principal justification for shadow docket orders the need to intervene early in litigation to prevent a party from suffering irreversible harm while the appeal unfolded was nowhere to be found.
*snip*
gab13by13
(32,323 posts)A partisan, fascist Supreme Court to give the appearance of justice.
Alito is worse than Thomas and he wants to be Chief Justice.
msfiddlestix
(8,178 posts)lamp_shade
(15,482 posts)ShazzieB
(22,590 posts)lamp_shade
(15,482 posts)keithbvadu2
(40,915 posts)Carlitos Brigante
(26,848 posts)to begin with.
Rebl2
(17,743 posts)what I always felt. How do they decide who is head of the Supreme Court.
Mz Pip
(28,455 posts)Scalia was already on the court when Renquist died. Speculation was Scalia would get Chief Justice but Bush picked Roberts.
Polybius
(21,901 posts)Personally, I think the Chief Justice should be an Associate Justice first.
Celerity
(54,409 posts)the new one. Even if the nominee is already in the SCOTUS, they have to be confirmed by the Senate, and then their Associate Justice slot is filled by a new person, who always must be confirmed by the Senate.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)It's essentially random.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)zentrum
(9,870 posts)CrispyQ
(40,970 posts)Its understandable, then, why Chief Justice Roberts would finally speak out. No one better understands the stakes for the courts credibility and institutional viability. If even his objections cant persuade the other conservatives to stop abusing the shadow docket, then that may signal the willingness of the courts conservative majority to go even further in the future and to use the shadow docket to resolve even more significant and contentious constitutional questions.
Is there any question they're going to do this?
KPN
(17,377 posts)left Democrats who want to destroy our country" in their TV ads. Its a frigging Repuq talking point. Hopefully at least we are still not referring to "our friends on the other side of the aisle" -- but I ell you, sometimes I gotta wonder.
CrispyQ
(40,970 posts)have been slow to recognize that their colleagues across the aisle are enablers of fascism. I kind of understand, cuz I have issues myself with family & friends who still identify as republican. But it's just so obvious that republican politicians have zero ethics or integrity. They've thrown the rule book in the trash. Once in awhile a few will step out & do the right thing, like the few who voted for Judge Jackson, but for the most part every one is a vile mess.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)DFW
(60,186 posts)They are anything BUT conservative. "Conservative" implies given to caution, deliberation before acting, risk-averse, and a healthy respect for precedent. This is the very opposite of the wild-eyed radicals of the Trump three plus Alito and Thomas. They are no conservative bloc. They are more like fanatic knights errant of the Spanish Inquisition.
FakeNoose
(41,634 posts)DFW
(60,186 posts)Its not an entirely unfair referencek
KPN
(17,377 posts)to that? Isn't it time to do something before it is too late to do something in that regard? I don't know, but there certainly seems to be some sentiment that the President has some leeway regarding the size of the court. If so, maybe that leeway sould be used -- again before it is too late.
Just sayin' ...
dpibel
(3,944 posts)Obvs., presidents have considerable lobbying power.
But they have no authority to change the composition of the court.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Any such commission would likely have recommended expanding the court. Maybe Biden decided Congress would never go along. Still, it would be good to have that recommendation out there publicly.
Thunderbeast
(3,819 posts)Abuse of power in the executive.
Abuse of the Filibuster and judicial confirmations in the legislative branch.
Railroading ideological opinions without debate in the Supreme Court.
There is no more "good faith" lens used by any of our leaders.
Very sad to see what we've lost.
CrispyQ
(40,970 posts)Celerity
(54,409 posts)batshit cray christofascist RWNJ's.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)bucolic_frolic
(55,141 posts)Ideology is driving us over a cliff. No one knows what to do about it. It's for the benefit of some select group. They didn't do this all for nothing.
KS Toronado
(23,727 posts)where the American Bar Assn. could give Judges a passing or failing grade every year,
and if failing they lose their seat on the S. C.
PatrickforB
(15,426 posts)product that has absolutely NO courtroom experience.
And then Kegger Kav.
When they overturn Roe, maybe people will begin to VOTE Democrats in.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)But I wouldn't call her a Conehead. Good lord.
She's on our side.
lamp_shade
(15,482 posts)PatrickforB
(15,426 posts)Wednesdays
(22,603 posts)Not Kagan.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)It actually only applies to Kagan.
Nonetheless, she's probably the best judge on the bench right now.
PatrickforB
(15,426 posts)Kagan is fine.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)I thought maybe she did mean Barrett. But the only judge without prior courtroom experience is Kagan. Barrett actually does have a little bit. Hence my confusion.
Kagan is a fantastic SC justice though. IMO probably the best one practicing right now.
PatrickforB
(15,426 posts)experience.
I suppose the gist of what I meant to say, nicknames and mistakes aside, is that we need justices who will rule objectively on the law and not according to some ideology, such as that put forward by the Federalist Society.
Roe, for instance, was decided on privacy.
But I have been troubled by a number of rulings that come straight from the neoliberal (supply-side tax cuts for corporatons, privatize, deregulate and gut government programs) playbook.
Citizens United, gutting the voting rights act, things like that hurt us no end.
Big Blue Marble
(5,691 posts)to corner us in both directions, fascism at work.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)Something they've whined and boohooed about since Brown v Board? Surely not. Fucking hypocrites.
erronis
(23,882 posts)From Scripture: It's the end that counts, not the means.
paleotn
(22,218 posts)Liars for Jebus and all.
NewJeffCT
(56,848 posts)IOKIYAR - It's OK If You're A Republican.
andym
(6,066 posts)Placing those conservative justices to overturn Roe V Wade and set a conservative agenda as activist judges was key to keep some Americans identifying as Republicans.
Response to andym (Reply #15)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
andym
(6,066 posts)being used by right wingers internationally in combination with nationalism to install neo-fascists and strongmen and to attempt to turn back the clock culturally. Examples include Orban in Hungary who calls himself an "illiberal" and a group of illiberal political leaders in Poland. The culture warriors here and abroad are appealing to traditionalism against a sea of change as a way to sway voters and it appears that many voters do care about this kind of ideology.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/24/revolt-against-liberalism-eastern-europe-poland-hungary-nativist-politics
Response to andym (Reply #57)
Chin music This message was self-deleted by its author.
calimary
(90,021 posts)One who always wanted to avoid making waves. Hes never impressed me.
Some legacy YOUVE built for yourself, Roberts. The Chief Justice Most Likely To Get Rolled Over.
Buckeyeblue
(6,352 posts)If he cared, he would be more vocal about what the Facist-5 are doing. A strongly worded opinion seems more like he is giving himself cover than anything else.
He could resign. The Facist-5 would still be in the majority...but only by a heartbeat.
He's not going to resign though.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)with reich-winged/racist, nation-destroying, deep dark money pockets too many favors. Hell, he's a Federalist himself, so he must not be too upset--maybe at some things--but not upset enough to cross his fellow Federalist Society members.
Buckeyeblue
(6,352 posts)He wouldn't have a friend left.
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts)fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)It's 9 people making individuals decisions with equal votes.
It's not like he can fire anyone, cut their pay or direct their opinions.
onenote
(46,142 posts)when the CJ is in the majority.
He still has that control but if the Court splits 5-4 with Roberts in the minority and Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett in the majority, then Thomas assigns the opinion.
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)as long as it lasts.
Then it will take years to claw back
Cosmocat
(15,424 posts)We all know 99% of what the scream about is projecting.
Farmer-Rick
(12,667 posts)Oh wait......Impeachment, pay and make up of the court are all Congress's tools. They need to start using them. There use to be only 6 justices, we need to add more.
Do you think if GOPers wanted more justices on the court to destroy a liberal majority they wouldn't do it? Of course they would ina heart beat.
Do you think TFG wouldn't have done it? I'm surprised they didn't impeach the few liberals on the court before TFG got voted out a 2nd time.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)Mainly that, aided by the crooked contradiction of McConnell, a sham dirty person like Trump appointing 3 Supremes. Of course fate played a part as well with the Notorious RBG dying just in time for the Wingnuts.
Generic Brad
(14,374 posts)Is he going to ride that reputation of flaccid ineffectiveness to the grave? Because that appears to be the course of inaction he has resigned himself to.
usaf-vet
(7,811 posts).... we all had a right to.
Piece by piece, ruling by rulings.
bucolic_frolic
(55,141 posts)There you have it. We have rule by ideology and not by law. The Constitution has been gamed, they found obscure holes that didn't exist and whacked them open with stupidity. I don't know where we go from here.
roamer65
(37,953 posts)Kaleva
(40,365 posts)"The Chief Justice is the highest judicial official in the country. He acts as the Chief Administrative Officer for the Federal Courts. He is responsible for appointing the director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as the spokesperson of the judicial branch.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court leads the business of the Supreme Court, and presides over all arguments in the Court.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is responsible for determining who will write the official opinion of the Court. The Chief Justice sets the agenda of the Court.
If the President is facing impeachment, the Chief Justice presides over the trial. The Chief Justice is responsible for administering the oath of office to the President of the United States of America at his inauguration."
https://supreme-court.laws.com/supreme-court/chief-justice-of-the-supreme-court
bucolic_frolic
(55,141 posts)and his power is shared with 8 other decision makers, plus the lower courts feed rulings up the ladder.
So yes, he doesn't really have that much power. He sets tone, but it's as if he's responsible for many things beyond his control.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)By Nancy Gertner
and
Laurence H. Tribe
December 9, 2021 at 5:01 p.m. EST
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/09/expand-supreme-court-laurence-tribe-nancy-gertner/