4 ms·

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 25,00

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".
rayiner 1y ago
The rise of the “shadow docket” is driven by changing behavior of litigants and the district courts. The main reason cases get on the shadow docket is litigants seeking, and district courts granting, TROs and preliminary injunctions against major executive or legislative actions without trials or often even full briefing. It can’t possibly be true that a district court can block a major action within days but the Supreme Court can’t correct it until years later through the regular appeal and certiorari process.
- wtallis 1y ago
  > Live by the sword, die by the sword. I'm not seeing how that applies. There's a clear asymmetry between lower courts issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions on the basis of well-established precedent, vs. the Supreme Court overturning those with little or no explanation or justification. When the executive or legislative action is "major", that would seem to make it more reasonable that the lower courts put the changes on hold pending a trial. Drastic changes should be implemented only with strong justification, and when a drastic change seems to be very clearly in violation of existing law, it is in dire need of checks and balances with teeth. It certainly isn't the Supreme Court's job to help the executive pull off major changes more quickly.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    The complaint isn’t about the “asymmetry,” it’s about the symmetry. A hastily issued district court order should be (and is) subject to being overturned by the higher courts just as quickly as it was issued. The precedent may be binding, but injunctions—unlike final judgments—are discretionary relief. The district court doesn’t have to grant discretionary injunctive relief based on precedents that are in doubt, and if they do, it’s perfectly fine for the Supreme Court to overrule that. > Drastic changes should be implemented only with strong justification That’s exactly backwards. The elected branches don’t have a “mother may I” relationship with the courts. That’s not the design, and that wasn’t the practice for most of the history of the republic. Injunctions are by definition “extraordinary relief” reserved for the most unusual cases. Go read Marbury v. Madison again. The Supreme Court bent over backwards to avoid having to enjoin the Secretary of State to perform what it concluded was a “ministerial,” non-discretionary action (delivering a letter that had already been signed by the outgoing President). Most injunctions against executive action in the recent decades would have been considered unfathomable overreach by the founding generation.
barney54 1y ago
There are arguments before the court on the shadow docket—in written briefs.
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> why shouldn't we simply pack the courts? We need deeper reform. I’m personally a fan of choosing by lot, from the appellate bench, a random slate of justices for each case. (That court of rotating judges would be the one in which “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested” [1].) You could do this entirely through legislation—nothing in the Constitution requires lifetime appointments to a permanent bench. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
cyanydeez 1y ago
The democrats are just not interested in being as opposed to this as they morally should because a large portion are bought biy the same capitalist forces that buy republicans. Whats more likely are states to shift policies to ignoring the federal courts and localize. The essential problem is the federal government is attacking the most fortified jurisdictions while choking their own support structures. That doesnt mean theyll fail, the same way shitty policies dont prevent Taliban rule.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  Capitalism is not why this is broken...
  - autoexec 1y ago
    Money in politics seems to be a huge part of it.
    - SR2Z 1y ago
      Politics seems to attract the rich even under systems where money isn't supposed to exist :)
  - cyanydeez 1y ago
    Capitalism is the diffusion of responsibility. It's the trolley problem. Trump may be pulling the lever to switch the tracks, capitalism is standing there doing nothing.

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".

rayiner 1y ago

The rise of the “shadow docket” is driven by changing behavior of litigants and the district courts. The main reason cases get on the shadow docket is litigants seeking, and district courts granting, TROs and preliminary injunctions against major executive or legislative actions without trials or often even full briefing. It can’t possibly be true that a district court can block a major action within days but the Supreme Court can’t correct it until years later through the regular appeal and certiorari process.

wtallis 1y ago
> Live by the sword, die by the sword. I'm not seeing how that applies. There's a clear asymmetry between lower courts issuing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions on the basis of well-established precedent, vs. the Supreme Court overturning those with little or no explanation or justification. When the executive or legislative action is "major", that would seem to make it more reasonable that the lower courts put the changes on hold pending a trial. Drastic changes should be implemented only with strong justification, and when a drastic change seems to be very clearly in violation of existing law, it is in dire need of checks and balances with teeth. It certainly isn't the Supreme Court's job to help the executive pull off major changes more quickly.
- rayiner 1y ago
  The complaint isn’t about the “asymmetry,” it’s about the symmetry. A hastily issued district court order should be (and is) subject to being overturned by the higher courts just as quickly as it was issued. The precedent may be binding, but injunctions—unlike final judgments—are discretionary relief. The district court doesn’t have to grant discretionary injunctive relief based on precedents that are in doubt, and if they do, it’s perfectly fine for the Supreme Court to overrule that. > Drastic changes should be implemented only with strong justification That’s exactly backwards. The elected branches don’t have a “mother may I” relationship with the courts. That’s not the design, and that wasn’t the practice for most of the history of the republic. Injunctions are by definition “extraordinary relief” reserved for the most unusual cases. Go read Marbury v. Madison again. The Supreme Court bent over backwards to avoid having to enjoin the Secretary of State to perform what it concluded was a “ministerial,” non-discretionary action (delivering a letter that had already been signed by the outgoing President). Most injunctions against executive action in the recent decades would have been considered unfathomable overreach by the founding generation.

barney54 1y ago

There are arguments before the court on the shadow docket—in written briefs.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> why shouldn't we simply pack the courts? We need deeper reform. I’m personally a fan of choosing by lot, from the appellate bench, a random slate of justices for each case. (That court of rotating judges would be the one in which “the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested” [1].) You could do this entirely through legislation—nothing in the Constitution requires lifetime appointments to a permanent bench. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

cyanydeez 1y ago

The democrats are just not interested in being as opposed to this as they morally should because a large portion are bought biy the same capitalist forces that buy republicans. Whats more likely are states to shift policies to ignoring the federal courts and localize. The essential problem is the federal government is attacking the most fortified jurisdictions while choking their own support structures. That doesnt mean theyll fail, the same way shitty policies dont prevent Taliban rule.

SR2Z 1y ago
Capitalism is not why this is broken...
- autoexec 1y ago
  Money in politics seems to be a huge part of it.
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    Politics seems to attract the rich even under systems where money isn't supposed to exist :)
- cyanydeez 1y ago
  Capitalism is the diffusion of responsibility. It's the trolley problem. Trump may be pulling the lever to switch the tracks, capitalism is standing there doing nothing.