Senate Dems introduce bill re SCOTUS Shadow Docket

[deminks]

Post by @democracydocket

View on Threads

NEW: Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), introduce a bill to require Supreme Court justices to provide written explanations and a vote breakdown for decisions on their emergency docket, also known as shadow docket.

End snip.

Good. There's one thing we can do, for all the pearl clutchers. It might be blocked. It might not pass. But we are doing something and getting the magats on the record. Better than a sternly written letter, IMHO.

[MOMFUDSKI]

1. Just keep leaning on them with whatever

is available. DAILY

[DoBW]

6. lay it on

yo

[B.See]

2. Good. The radical REICH court has been using

their 'shadow' docket ( that's shadow as in, underhandedly clandestine actions they don't even have to explain, much less tell anyone about) throughout Trump's residency, to have it HIS way.

[RainCaster]

3. Then we need a SCOTUS Ethical Review Board

One that has Real Power- power to punish and remove those who ignore the common forms of ethical rules that the rest of us have to live by. Removal can be temporary or permanent.

[FBaggins]

4. SCOTUS would decline

Congress lacks the power to pass such a law.

Not that we’ll really find out - as the law won’t pass

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. Congress has significant power to regulate the Supreme Court

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[FBaggins]

18. Not in this area

Just as Congress is the judge of their own procedures/rules, SCOTUS controls theirs.

Congress could no more require written rulings than they could require supermajorities to overturn earlier decisions.

[Celerity]

5. Senate Democrats Introduce Bill To Make US Supreme Court More Transparent

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/senate-democrats-introduce-bill-to-make-us-supreme-court-more-transparent/

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), along with more than a dozen other Senate Democrats, introduced a bill on Wednesday requiring U.S. Supreme Court justices to provide written explanations and record votes for decisions in their emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. “Our Shadow Docket Sunlight Act would open these decisions to greater public view and scrutiny— literally bringing light and accountability to outcomes of important cases now handed down in peremptory silence,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

The court’s shadow docket includes requests for immediate action from the court and primarily consists of requests to pause a lower court’s order, which voids a decision in a case while an appeal is ongoing. These cases require extraordinary circumstances and proof that people would suffer “irreparable harm” if the ruling was left in place. The justices have previously utilized the shadow docket to make decisions on COVID-19 policies, abortion access, immigration and redistricting.

In one of the most recent cases on the shadow docket, the Court granted requests from Louisiana, Black voters and civil rights organizations to allow the state’s new congressional map to remain in place while they considered an appeal over a lower court ruling that struck it down. Unlike the normal appeals process, cases that go through the Court’s shadow docket don’t have a full briefing and oral argument. The decisions are usually handed down in just a few days or weeks, released in short written orders with little to no reasoning — often not saying which justices supported or opposed it.

Blumenthal, a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, introduced the Shadow Docket Sunlight Act to try to increase transparency within the nation’s highest court. This bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Il.) and others including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This bill requires justices to provide a written explanation and indication of how each voted for decisions on the shadow docket. It also requires the Federal Judicial Center to report the Supreme Court’s compliance with the law to Congress each year.

snip

[KS Toronado]

7. And if the Court gives the Senate the middle finger over this

(like they're above the law) can we lock them up?

[Cheezoholic]

9. Can take their money away, make them work in the basement. Make them bring their own lunch

make them pay to get their robes washed. Put a quarter slot on the bathroom door. I'm done with them.

[onenote]

11. Not permitted under the constitution.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prohibits the compensation paid to an Article III judge from being reduced during their term in office.

[KS Toronado]

12. Then reclassify them as an Article XXX Judge with no benefits

There's always a way.

[onenote]

13. No there's not.

Making up shit isn't a great look.

[KS Toronado]

14. It's changing laws or making new ones, happens all the time.

[FBaggins]

15. And courts overturn laws all the time

Lots of state supreme courts have ruled (for instance) that education is a state constitutional obligation and mandated that the state legislature increase funding. It would be easy to say that the constitution restricts Congress from defunding a coequal branch of government.

And it would be unanimous.

[KS Toronado]

21. So Senator Blumenthal is just pissing in the wind

attempting to get the SCOTUS to explain themselves about their Shadow Docket to the voters?

[FBaggins]

22. If that was his goal - yes

But it isn’t

[onenote]

20. Changing an express constitutional provision requires a constitutional amendment. And it doesn't happen all the time.

Your post suggested that Congress "reclassify" Supreme Court justices (or maybe just some of them?) as 'Article XXX" judges. What the heck does that mean. Article III, which expressly bars reducing the compensation of an Article III judge, and which also expressly defines the Supreme Court justices as Article III judges, is a reference to the US Constitution, which has seven "articles"? Where would one find "Article XXX"? Is that supposed to be a reference to an amendment to the Constitution?

[onenote]

10. its not a criminal provision, so no they can't be locked up

And it's not likely to be enacted any time soon or take effect until after challenges are brought.

[Cheezoholic]

8. Take their clerks away, make them work

I don't want the clerks working for the Seditious 6 anywhere near my government in the future anyway. I don't care, I'm that far gone now. Fuck 'em.

[Takket]

16. SCOTUS will just say it violates separation of powers and toss it out.

[FBaggins]

19. Well sure. But that's only because...

… it does