4 ms·

SCOTUS to LowerCourts: Ignore Binding Precedent, Follow Our Covert Shadow Docket

65 points by WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

WarOnPrivacy 1y ago
(headline, ext version) Supreme Court To Lower Courts: Ignore Actual Binding Precedent, Follow Our Unexplained Shadow Docket Vibes Instead
- krapp 1y ago
  To be fair, the Supreme Court has always operated by vibes. Americans have convinced themselves that SCOTUS has some objective means of interpreting the Constitution according to "originalist" principles, but in essence they guess what the founding fathers would say if summoned via pentagram.
  - DangitBobby 1y ago
    It's more like they use motivated reasoning to reach the desired outcome and then backfill the legal rationale as best they can.
    - krapp 1y ago
      Given that ghosts aren't real, it's the same difference.
      - boroboro4 1y ago
        I kinda agree on overall sentiment but it’s important to write it down: we went from 1. Court doing legislation by making decision on important topics, coming with reasoning, mostly building on previous reasoning and gradually changing things 2. Court makes a decision and then just build up a reasoning to support it, sometimes completely off 3. Court makes a decision without reasoning at all I think 1 is reasonable, with 2 being bad and 3 being ugly.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    What’s the alternative to guessing what the founding fathers meant? Not even pretending to be bound by what the constitution means? The “living constitution” is an oxymoron. Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. If the duly elected legislature votes to execute accused criminals without trial, then that reflects evolving social standards. The only thing that can overrule that is the dead hand of the founders. You may have a point that originalism doesn’t work. But if you’re correct, then that’s just an argument for curtailing the jurisdiction of the courts.
    - krapp 1y ago
      > Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. By what non-tautological definition? Of course it can, because that's the method the court already uses and has always used. That they cover their personal and political interpretation with the thin veneer of "originalism" doesn't matter - it doesn't really exist, it's a farce. Their decisions are obviously correct when you agree with the outcome and radical legislation from the bench when you don't. We need to stop pretending the courts at any level are any less partisan or political than any other branch of the government, and that requires disabusing ourselves of the premise that the Constitution was ever not a "living document" in practice.
      - rayiner 1y ago
        >> Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. > By what non-tautological definition? The definitions invoked by proponents of "living constitutionalism." The steel-man version of their premise is that judges should interpret the constitution "draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (Warren, J.). But courts rarely hear cases that involve social standards that have actually evolved. Nobody is challenging outdated adultery laws in the Supreme Court because the social standards have evolved and nobody is getting prosecuted under them. An honest version of "living constitutionalism" would be an extremely narrow principle, reserved for unusual cases where someone has taken action contrary to the accepted social consensus. > We need to stop pretending the courts at any level are any less partisan or political than any other branch of the government, and that requires disabusing ourselves of the premise that the Constitution was ever not a "living document" in practice. That's just an argument for drastically curtailing the jurisdiction of the courts! We already have two political branches. We don't need a third.
  - paulddraper 1y ago
    1. Many Americans and justices have explicitly denied attempting originalist interpretation. 2. New phenomena necessitate extrapolation. But many phenomena — death penalty, abortion, religious observance, public schools, etc — existed when the Constitution was ratified by the people; there’s no need to summon the dead.
treetalker 1y ago
> The Supreme Court’s shadow docket has become a lawless mess. The justices are issuing extremely consequential rulings with either no explanation at all, or with barely a paragraph of reasoning. This is status quo for Florida's district courts of appeal (its intermediate appellate courts).
biimugan 1y ago
I'll just note that this seems entirely predictable. So much so that I can't help but see it as purposeful. The federal court system itself only has about 25,000 employees. SCOTUS has 9 judges plus a couple dozen clerks and other assistants. Lower courts already do not have enough employees to contend with an executive branch made up of millions of individuals, especially when that executive is ordering its employees (seemingly) to just ignore or purposefully misinterpret laws, leading to an ever-increasing number of lawsuits. To further reduce the power of lower courts at this time (which this SCOTUS seems to do in almost every decision involving the executive) means even more cases for SCOTUS and even less time for arguments. Conveniently, we have the shadow docket. A way to issue diktats without any arguments before the court and in many cases without any reasoning whatsoever. And conveniently, lower courts can then interpret a lack of details from a shadow docket decision however they want. So that the executive can appeal yet again, to get another thumbs down from SCOTUS (without any explanation), and round and round we go. The executive gets to keep the plates spinning while it essentially does whatever it wants. With this situation, why shouldn't we simply pack the courts? If SCOTUS is going to take more cases than it can handle and not provide any real guidance to lower courts, then clearly they need more employees.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  We only have one Supreme Court. "Packing the court" (more justices) will not equal more cases heard.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > "Packing the court" (more justices) will not equal more cases heard By choice. It's only laws--not the Constitution--that requires the entire bench hear and decide on every case.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      True, but that's not what's usually meant by "packing the court".
- 1y ago
ringeryless 1y ago
Thomas, Alito, even Roberts, and 2 of the 3 Trump appointees = they are acting as if conspiring WITH the Trump admin and a MAGA congress in a vast conspiracy you would never be foolish enough to believe was possible, were it not happening in real-time in front of our faces. This lawless corrupt Supine Court is making it up as they go along, and then Alito and Roberts have the nerve to be outraged when their blatant corruption is pointed out. I wish they would be subject to that ancient Persian remedy for corrupt judges. History will NOT look kindly upon how the Supreme Court of the USA gave a government employee the power of a king.
dubious2 1y ago
Lower court follows precedent.The law.High court follows The Enabling act.They don't need to explain.

65 points by WarOnPrivacy 1y ago

(headline, ext version) Supreme Court To Lower Courts: Ignore Actual Binding Precedent, Follow Our Unexplained Shadow Docket Vibes Instead

krapp 1y ago
To be fair, the Supreme Court has always operated by vibes. Americans have convinced themselves that SCOTUS has some objective means of interpreting the Constitution according to "originalist" principles, but in essence they guess what the founding fathers would say if summoned via pentagram.
- DangitBobby 1y ago
  It's more like they use motivated reasoning to reach the desired outcome and then backfill the legal rationale as best they can.
  - krapp 1y ago
    Given that ghosts aren't real, it's the same difference.
    - boroboro4 1y ago
      I kinda agree on overall sentiment but it’s important to write it down: we went from 1. Court doing legislation by making decision on important topics, coming with reasoning, mostly building on previous reasoning and gradually changing things 2. Court makes a decision and then just build up a reasoning to support it, sometimes completely off 3. Court makes a decision without reasoning at all I think 1 is reasonable, with 2 being bad and 3 being ugly.
- rayiner 1y ago
  What’s the alternative to guessing what the founding fathers meant? Not even pretending to be bound by what the constitution means? The “living constitution” is an oxymoron. Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. If the duly elected legislature votes to execute accused criminals without trial, then that reflects evolving social standards. The only thing that can overrule that is the dead hand of the founders. You may have a point that originalism doesn’t work. But if you’re correct, then that’s just an argument for curtailing the jurisdiction of the courts.
  - krapp 1y ago
    > Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. By what non-tautological definition? Of course it can, because that's the method the court already uses and has always used. That they cover their personal and political interpretation with the thin veneer of "originalism" doesn't matter - it doesn't really exist, it's a farce. Their decisions are obviously correct when you agree with the outcome and radical legislation from the bench when you don't. We need to stop pretending the courts at any level are any less partisan or political than any other branch of the government, and that requires disabusing ourselves of the premise that the Constitution was ever not a "living document" in practice.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      >> Any interpretive method that purports to “update the constitution with the times” almost by definition cannot be invoked to overturn democratically-legitimated laws and executive actions. > By what non-tautological definition? The definitions invoked by proponents of "living constitutionalism." The steel-man version of their premise is that judges should interpret the constitution "draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958) (Warren, J.). But courts rarely hear cases that involve social standards that have actually evolved. Nobody is challenging outdated adultery laws in the Supreme Court because the social standards have evolved and nobody is getting prosecuted under them. An honest version of "living constitutionalism" would be an extremely narrow principle, reserved for unusual cases where someone has taken action contrary to the accepted social consensus. > We need to stop pretending the courts at any level are any less partisan or political than any other branch of the government, and that requires disabusing ourselves of the premise that the Constitution was ever not a "living document" in practice. That's just an argument for drastically curtailing the jurisdiction of the courts! We already have two political branches. We don't need a third.
- paulddraper 1y ago
  1. Many Americans and justices have explicitly denied attempting originalist interpretation. 2. New phenomena necessitate extrapolation. But many phenomena — death penalty, abortion, religious observance, public schools, etc — existed when the Constitution was ratified by the people; there’s no need to summon the dead.

treetalker 1y ago

> The Supreme Court’s shadow docket has become a lawless mess. The justices are issuing extremely consequential rulings with either no explanation at all, or with barely a paragraph of reasoning. This is status quo for Florida's district courts of appeal (its intermediate appellate courts).

biimugan 1y ago

I'll just note that this seems entirely predictable. So much so that I can't help but see it as purposeful. The federal court system itself only has about 25,000 employees. SCOTUS has 9 judges plus a couple dozen clerks and other assistants. Lower courts already do not have enough employees to contend with an executive branch made up of millions of individuals, especially when that executive is ordering its employees (seemingly) to just ignore or purposefully misinterpret laws, leading to an ever-increasing number of lawsuits. To further reduce the power of lower courts at this time (which this SCOTUS seems to do in almost every decision involving the executive) means even more cases for SCOTUS and even less time for arguments. Conveniently, we have the shadow docket. A way to issue diktats without any arguments before the court and in many cases without any reasoning whatsoever. And conveniently, lower courts can then interpret a lack of details from a shadow docket decision however they want. So that the executive can appeal yet again, to get another thumbs down from SCOTUS (without any explanation), and round and round we go. The executive gets to keep the plates spinning while it essentially does whatever it wants. With this situation, why shouldn't we simply pack the courts? If SCOTUS is going to take more cases than it can handle and not provide any real guidance to lower courts, then clearly they need more employees.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
We only have one Supreme Court. "Packing the court" (more justices) will not equal more cases heard.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > "Packing the court" (more justices) will not equal more cases heard By choice. It's only laws--not the Constitution--that requires the entire bench hear and decide on every case.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    True, but that's not what's usually meant by "packing the court".
1y ago

ringeryless 1y ago

Thomas, Alito, even Roberts, and 2 of the 3 Trump appointees = they are acting as if conspiring WITH the Trump admin and a MAGA congress in a vast conspiracy you would never be foolish enough to believe was possible, were it not happening in real-time in front of our faces. This lawless corrupt Supine Court is making it up as they go along, and then Alito and Roberts have the nerve to be outraged when their blatant corruption is pointed out. I wish they would be subject to that ancient Persian remedy for corrupt judges. History will NOT look kindly upon how the Supreme Court of the USA gave a government employee the power of a king.

dubious2 1y ago

Lower court follows precedent.The law.High court follows The Enabling act.They don't need to explain.