These MAGA justices are letting Trump get away with murder

[B.See]

These MAGA justices are letting Trump get away with murder - op ed by Sabrina Haake - Rawstory

During an absurdly obsequious, three-and-a-half-hour televised “cabinet meeting” this week, Donald Trump said he can “do whatever he wants...” and suggested that Americans might support him becoming a dictator.

So far, the Roberts court seems to be goose-stepping along, having granted nearly all of the Trump’s administration’s 19 emergency appeals on its shadow docket, where rationale and legal precedent are conveniently omitted.

The Republican majority on the high court has long wanted to gut the administrative state in service to expanded executive power that will in turn protect oligarchic interests over those of the common man. Their nihilistic legal philosophy holds that almost all regulatory agencies and laws should give way to private, for-profit interests.

As Trump and the MAGA majority on the high court gut the administrative state and eliminate federal services, American casualties will continue to mount.

MEANWHILE:

The Trump Administration is Investigating Workers’ Rights in Mexico While Demolishing Them At Home - TPM

The DOL in a Thursday press release sent at 4:01 p.m. announced it would be investigating whether workers at a slaughterhouse and meat distribution plant in Mexico “are being denied the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining” under a trade agreement labor provision.

By 4:02 p.m., another administration email came: The White House was sharing Trump’s just-signed executive order adding six more agencies to the list of federal departments whose workers were being forced to terminate their unions.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. As an attorney, I can't help but wonder how these shadow docket decisions

can be used as valid precedence for future controversies.

They lack reasoning, to show the "logic" behind the decisions.

My hope is that they are as temporary as Executive Orders, to be ignored or overturned by future cases.

[B.See]

2. You'd no doubt know better than I.

I'm no attorney, but I don't recall reading where the shadow docket decisions carry any less weight or permanence than others.

Maybe a fellow DUer can clarify?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. If SCOTUS decides either "A" or "B" but don't explain why,

that case is useless for future new cases. In order to successfully appeal a case, the attorney has to understand how the justices reached their conclusion, for example, which cases did they rely on, the policy considerations, the rationale for choosing one position over another one.

The Shadow Docket is like your parents telling you, "No! Because I said so!"

[B.See]

4. Yes, I know the shadow docket rulings

have no written (majority or dissenting) opinions that explain the reasoning related to a decision.

I was under the impression you were suggesting that would render them temporary. I don't know if that's the case or not.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Temporary in the sense that the next SCOTUS could rule 180 degrees from

a shadow docket decision because it's so flimsy.

[B.See]

6. Oh I see. Then

I defer to your expertise on the subject. Thanks for clarifying.

[no_hypocrisy]

7. YW. You'd think with all those law clerks from Harvard and Yale,

they'd come up with SOMETHING more substantial than "yes" or "no".

[B.See]

8. I think it's by design. Boils down to

essentially what you said: "because we said so." Pretense at jurisprudence or even precedent, be damned.

Essentially thugs in robes, imo.