Hell Freezes Over!

Rod, how could this be?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/01/supreme-court-trump-fed-lisa-cook.html

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, how could this be?

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/01/supreme-court-trump-fed-lisa-cook.html

Jim, I don't know how this could be given that they're actually going to have oral arguments instead of deciding it clandestinely in the shadow docket!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim, I don't know how this could be given that they're actually going to have oral arguments instead of deciding it clandestinely in the shadow docket!

Jim, upon reflection,  I'll take a stab at it:

My guess as to why hell has seemingly frozen over and SCOTUS is actually going to have oral arguments instead of expediting a favorable shadow docket decision yet again for Trump is:

1. Clarence was either yachting, RVing, boating or in transit via private jet to his favorite private island.

2. Amy was home with the kids and/or giving a presentation at a local prep school for girls on a  handmaid's  tale.

3. Sammy called in sick that day.

4. Neil slept in late after losing his voice pontificating on the virtues of conservatism.

5. John was posing for his portrait in the upcoming Trump ballroom.

6. Brett was home with his security detail deciding which October beer fest he should go to.

So, one of the remaining SCOTUS judges made the call under strict orders from John not to decide anything on the shadow docket without hearing oral arguments first!

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim, upon reflection,  I'll take a stab at it:

My guess as to why hell has seemingly frozen over and SCOTUS is actually going to have oral arguments instead of expediting a favorable shadow docket decision yet again for Trump is:

1. Clarence was either yachting, RVing, boating or in transit via private jet to his favorite private island.

2. Amy was home with the kids and/or giving a presentation at a local prep school for girls on a  handmaid's  tale.

3. Sammy called in sick that day.

4. Neil slept in late after losing his voice pontificating on the virtues of conservatism.

5. John was posing for his portrait in the upcoming Trump ballroom.

6. Brett was home with his security detail deciding which October beer fest he should go to.

So, one of the remaining SCOTUS judges made the call under strict orders from John not to decide anything on the shadow docket without hearing oral arguments first!

excellent analysis 🧐 

😀😀😀

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Jim, upon reflection,  I'll take a stab at it:

My guess as to why hell has seemingly frozen over and SCOTUS is actually going to have oral arguments instead of expediting a favorable shadow docket decision yet again for Trump is:

1. Clarence was either yachting, RVing, boating or in transit via private jet to his favorite private island.

2. Amy was home with the kids and/or giving a presentation at a local prep school for girls on a  handmaid's  tale.

3. Sammy called in sick that day.

4. Neil slept in late after losing his voice pontificating on the virtues of conservatism.

5. John was posing for his portrait in the upcoming Trump ballroom.

6. Brett was home with his security detail deciding which October beer fest he should go to.

So, one of the remaining SCOTUS judges made the call under strict orders from John not to decide anything on the shadow docket without hearing oral arguments first!

Pretty funny. I especially liked #6.

Attached Image:

I'd like Jim Brown's take on the "why" behind this CNN explanation of the "how" SCOTUS does what it does with the shadow docket:   https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/politics/video/shadow-docket-trump-supreme-court-explained

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'd like Jim Brown's take on the "why" behind this CNN explanation of the "how" SCOTUS does what it does with the shadow docket:   https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/politics/video/shadow-docket-trump-supreme-court-explained

It's just another example of Trump and his band of merry men pulling every lever they can to achieve their agenda. The emergency docket, or shadow docket, was never intended to be used the way Trump's administration is using it. A significant portion of what they are submitting to the shadow docket does not rise to the level of an emergency. Just like his fake emergencies, they have used to justify tariffs, for example.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It's just another example of Trump and his band of merry men pulling every lever they can to achieve their agenda. The emergency docket, or shadow docket, was never intended to be used the way Trump's administration is using it. A significant portion of what they are submitting to the shadow docket does not rise to the level of an emergency. Just like his fake emergencies, they have used to justify tariffs, for example.

That’s part of it James.  Another part is the relatively new practice of left leaning district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions of alleged executive overreach.  The propriety of lower courts enjoining the executive has always been a proper subject for the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.   I am not contradicting your point.  No doubt that Trump is pushing legal limits.

On the other hand many executive actions in the fields of immigration, agency operation, agency staffing and the like are probably or possibly constitutional, even though these actions have naturally pissed off those on the left.  In addition to litigating these policies on the merits, the Democrats have sought out nationwide injunctions from friendly jurisdictions.  Setting aside those injunctions pending briefing and argument is a reasonable use of the emergency docket, even though Rod and his sources squeal like it is the end of democracy.   In every one of these cases, the emergency order is designed to best preserve the status quo until the full hearing on the merits occurs.   The case that started this thread is a good example.  The Court is using its emergency docket to decide that the Fed Governor could keep her job until a full hearing occurs on Trump’s authority to fire her.  The Court is preserving the status quo to the best of its ability.   There is no guarantee that the Fed governor keeps her job after evidentiary hearings in the lower courts and possibly briefing and oral argument at the Supreme Court.

Bottom line:  Yes Trump is pushing the boundaries hard and probably overstepping his authority in many instances. At the same time, the Democrat Resistance is seeking, and in many cases, getting injunctions of executive action at the trial court level, even when the reviled executive action is probably constitutional. This combination of overreach and excessive resistance push-back is causing the huge increase in Emergency actions which must be heard by the Supreme Court. Those who write articles from the left acting like this is the end of democracy simply don’t understand these rulings, or perhaps they can’t resist grossly politicizing the scope of the rulings being issued at the emergency docket level.   People sure eat up the “shadow docket” bs.   Ohh, how sinister!

By the way, the left is going to lose a lot of these cases when the hearings on the merits occur. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. This is the Democrat’s fault. If they wanted the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices, they needed to win a couple of exceptionally winnable elections.

Originally Posted by James Brown

That’s part of it James.  Another part is the relatively new practice of left leaning district court judges issuing nationwide injunctions of alleged executive overreach.  The propriety of lower courts enjoining the executive has always been a proper subject for the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.   I am not contradicting your point.  No doubt that Trump is pushing legal limits.

On the other hand many executive actions in the fields of immigration, agency operation, agency staffing and the like are probably or possibly constitutional, even though these actions have naturally pissed off those on the left.  In addition to litigating these policies on the merits, the Democrats have sought out nationwide injunctions from friendly jurisdictions.  Setting aside those injunctions pending briefing and argument is a reasonable use of the emergency docket, even though Rod and his sources squeal like it is the end of democracy.   In every one of these cases, the emergency order is designed to best preserve the status quo until the full hearing on the merits occurs.   The case that started this thread is a good example.  The Court is using its emergency docket to decide that the Fed Governor could keep her job until a full hearing occurs on Trump’s authority to fire her.  The Court is preserving the status quo to the best of its ability.   There is no guarantee that the Fed governor keeps her job after evidentiary hearings in the lower courts and possibly briefing and oral argument at the Supreme Court.

Bottom line:  Yes Trump is pushing the boundaries hard and probably overstepping his authority in many instances. At the same time, the Democrat Resistance is seeking, and in many cases, getting injunctions of executive action at the trial court level, even when the reviled executive action is probably constitutional. This combination of overreach and excessive resistance push-back is causing the huge increase in Emergency actions which must be heard by the Supreme Court. Those who write articles from the left acting like this is the end of democracy simply don’t understand these rulings, or perhaps they can’t resist grossly politicizing the scope of the rulings being issued at the emergency docket level.   People sure eat up the “shadow docket” bs.   Ohh, how sinister!

By the way, the left is going to lose a lot of these cases when the hearings on the merits occur. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. This is the Democrat’s fault. If they wanted the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices, they needed to win a couple of exceptionally winnable elections.

Rather than watching biased nonsense on CNN, we should take a look at these tables and try to figure out for ourselves whether this is a decent system providing decent if imperfect checks and balances, or whether this is indeed the coronation of King Donald the First.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2024/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2025/

The tables above have really nice click through links.   Try a few in your favorite hot-potato politically charged cases and see how often you see language in the order along the lines of:  “stayed” or “granted” “pending disposition in the court below, or further action by this Court.”

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rather than watching biased nonsense on CNN, we should take a look at these tables and try to figure out for ourselves whether this is a decent system providing decent if imperfect checks and balances, or whether this is indeed the coronation of King Donald the First.  

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2024/
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2025/

The tables above have really nice click through links.   Try a few in your favorite hot-potato politically charged cases and see how often you see language in the order along the lines of:  “stayed” or “granted” “pending disposition in the court below, or further action by this Court.”

Jim,
I don't think the nicely-starched robe attire you've described in your initial response holds up under scrutiny. For example, the Biden administration sought clarification on a timely affordable care act issue from the emergency/shadow docket and was refused. The Trump administration later posed the same question and it received an immediate response and review by the docket. So, it appears that the politically conservative element of the court determines what is heard and what is not by their biases and not necessarily by the process that you've described. 

Additionally, as noted by a lower court judge in that CNN video, the court is not providing the guidance that it should to the lower courts in its lack of explanations for their shadow docket rulings and, in essence, alternately either refers to them as de facto precedents and/or determinations that can't somehow be provided in writing because a final determination hasn't been made by SCOTUS. Since there's no clarification by SCOTUS on this self-created problem, it appears to be a major contradictory issue on their part, or perhaps a major error of omission due to apparent judicial incompetence. 

To simply say, on your part, that's it's the fault of democrats not winning more elections to influence the makeup of the court seems unreasonable and untenable in light of the above.