4 ms·

Federal Judge Survey: Warns of Judicial Crisis, Faults SCOTUS Emergency Orders

15 points by mmooss 1y ago

mmooss 1y ago
The survey is remarkable in even getting responses: US federal judges commenting (anonymously) about the court system and the Supreme Court in particular, which you very rarely see and which seems to violate the judiciary's code of ethics.
- MentatOnMelange 1y ago
  The supreme court sets the ethical tone for the entire judiciary, since they're the final say in court rulings and usually (not always) highly respected jurists. In terms of a code of ethics, this survey is like jaywalking while there's a riot happening.
allears 1y ago
Now that SCOTUS has gone so far off the rails, it's no longer possible to maintain a stiff upper lip and claim that everything's fine.
mitchbob 1y ago
https://archive.ph/2025.10.12-005924/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html https://archive.ph/2025.10.12-005924/https://www.nytimes.com...
mmooss 1y ago
One argument against SCOTUS emergency orders (or the 'Shadow Docket') that I haven't seen is that these decisions are made without an open court session, without hearing any arguments (are there even the arguments that typically accompany preliminary injunctions?, and without an open decision-making process - no vote, no written analysis of the facts and law, etc. It's just a few people anonymously pronouncing decisions. How is that a legitimate judicial decision at all? Is that authority within their Constitutional powers? 'Court' and 'judicial' have specific meanings - it's not 'whatever a judge does', I would think. I'd be interested in any lawyers commenting on why people with legal expertise don't make that argument.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Is that authority within their Constitutional powers Yes. This is everything the Constitution has to say on the Court [1]. It would take a simple act of Congress to regulate the emergency docket. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
  - mmooss 1y ago
    It does say "judicial" and arguably these decisions aren't judicial if that requires process, but of course nobody is going to make that argument - at least not for now.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > arguably these decisions aren't judicial if that requires process I don't think there is a definition of judicial power that exempts bench orders.
      - mmooss 1y ago
        We're getting pretty far into the weeds because it's a very theoretical issue: When a judge issues a preliminary injunction, for example, both parties have a chance to make their arguments, and it's all done in public, and the judge issuing the order puts their name and reasoning on it. Courts do have rules; judges have rules. It's not just 'whatever a judge thinks'; the citizens of the democracy assign certain powers to the judges for the good of the people they serve; the rules of procedure, etc. have a long history. The Shadow Docket rulings aren't judicial process, in many respects, whether or not they get away with it.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Courts do have rules; judges have rules Those rules are set first by the Constitution, next by the Congress and finally by SCOTUS. I hate the emergency docket. But it's hard to argue it's somehow illegal. > the citizens of the democracy assign certain powers to the judges for the good of the people they serve We're in a republic. To the extent the courts have a core Constitutional role, it's in protecting the minority from the will of the majority.

15 points by mmooss 1y ago

The survey is remarkable in even getting responses: US federal judges commenting (anonymously) about the court system and the Supreme Court in particular, which you very rarely see and which seems to violate the judiciary's code of ethics.

MentatOnMelange 1y ago
The supreme court sets the ethical tone for the entire judiciary, since they're the final say in court rulings and usually (not always) highly respected jurists. In terms of a code of ethics, this survey is like jaywalking while there's a riot happening.

allears 1y ago

Now that SCOTUS has gone so far off the rails, it's no longer possible to maintain a stiff upper lip and claim that everything's fine.

mitchbob 1y ago

https://archive.ph/2025.10.12-005924/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-crisis-supreme-court-trump.html https://archive.ph/2025.10.12-005924/https://www.nytimes.com...

mmooss 1y ago

One argument against SCOTUS emergency orders (or the 'Shadow Docket') that I haven't seen is that these decisions are made without an open court session, without hearing any arguments (are there even the arguments that typically accompany preliminary injunctions?, and without an open decision-making process - no vote, no written analysis of the facts and law, etc. It's just a few people anonymously pronouncing decisions. How is that a legitimate judicial decision at all? Is that authority within their Constitutional powers? 'Court' and 'judicial' have specific meanings - it's not 'whatever a judge does', I would think. I'd be interested in any lawyers commenting on why people with legal expertise don't make that argument.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Is that authority within their Constitutional powers Yes. This is everything the Constitution has to say on the Court [1]. It would take a simple act of Congress to regulate the emergency docket. [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/
- mmooss 1y ago
  It does say "judicial" and arguably these decisions aren't judicial if that requires process, but of course nobody is going to make that argument - at least not for now.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > arguably these decisions aren't judicial if that requires process I don't think there is a definition of judicial power that exempts bench orders.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      We're getting pretty far into the weeds because it's a very theoretical issue: When a judge issues a preliminary injunction, for example, both parties have a chance to make their arguments, and it's all done in public, and the judge issuing the order puts their name and reasoning on it. Courts do have rules; judges have rules. It's not just 'whatever a judge thinks'; the citizens of the democracy assign certain powers to the judges for the good of the people they serve; the rules of procedure, etc. have a long history. The Shadow Docket rulings aren't judicial process, in many respects, whether or not they get away with it.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Courts do have rules; judges have rules Those rules are set first by the Constitution, next by the Congress and finally by SCOTUS. I hate the emergency docket. But it's hard to argue it's somehow illegal. > the citizens of the democracy assign certain powers to the judges for the good of the people they serve We're in a republic. To the extent the courts have a core Constitutional role, it's in protecting the minority from the will of the majority.