2 ms·

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 c

by 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.
- mmooss 1y ago
  Most rules are set by centuries custom and precedent, including from the UK, though they continue to be developed and revised. Consider common law, for example. The Constitution's, Congress's, and SCOTUS's roles, by volume, are limited.
- dctoedt 1y ago
  Under Article VI, Congress creates the lower federal courts (and so can limit those courts' jurisdiction); the Supreme Court has explicit "original jurisdiction" (i.e., it's a trial court) in a very-limited number of types of case, and for appeals, the [Supreme] Court's power can be limited by Congress under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48250 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48250 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/exceptions-clause-and-congressional-control-over-appellate-jurisdiction https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/sec...

by mmooss 1y ago

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.

mmooss 1y ago
Most rules are set by centuries custom and precedent, including from the UK, though they continue to be developed and revised. Consider common law, for example. The Constitution's, Congress's, and SCOTUS's roles, by volume, are limited.
dctoedt 1y ago
Under Article VI, Congress creates the lower federal courts (and so can limit those courts' jurisdiction); the Supreme Court has explicit "original jurisdiction" (i.e., it's a trial court) in a very-limited number of types of case, and for appeals, the [Supreme] Court's power can be limited by Congress under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48250 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48250 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/exceptions-clause-and-congressional-control-over-appellate-jurisdiction https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/sec...