Posts Made By: Rod Kaufman

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod, how could this be?

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

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!

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.”

Originally Posted by James Lacey

The emergency docket has a pretty low standard of entry. I think a single justice can refer an application to the full court? This low barrier to entry likely explains why many of Trump's requests are referred. Additionally, the referring justice is assigned to the same circuit as the application originates, allowing the applicant to "circuit shop" if they believe they will receive an injunction from a lower court.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Rod and James:  You both replied to this part of my post.  I’m basically just ribbing you with these “elections have consequences” lines.   Even though it is absolutely a truism, just as it was when Obama first said it.  

The orders issued on the emergency docket have rarely been detailed orders for all of history.   Also, they are not typically precedent.  Usually the Court grants or denies a stay of a lower court ruling, an injunction for example, while the litigation proceeds.   Did you guys look at those tables, and click on the links?   Did you see all the referrals back for further proceedings?  

Here is an interesting aside.  Did you notice all the death penalty cases on the emergency docket?  I did not look at them all, but it appears that these are routinely denied by the Roberts Court.  For better or worse it was not always that way.   This is a good example of the Court’s philosophy trending from left to right based upon the makeup of the Court.   

Rod, I know that I’ll never convince you, but you are simply dead wrong when you find incompetence or malfeasance in each of the  Court’s ”disappointing” rulings, when viewed from your liberal perspective.  Any pundit who writes any article whatsoever equating a conservative Court with “wrong” or “incompetent” is just a political hack and probably knows they are lying.   It is not right v. wrong thing, it is conservative judicial philosophy v liberal judicial philosophy thing.   The death penalty cases show this.  Roe showed this.  Smart people like RBG knew this.   Guest editorialist who used to be in the DOJ, or who used to be judges know this too.  You won’t catch them saying it on CNN though.

Originally Posted by James Brown

If you would like to point out a couple cases from the SCOTUS blog lists that I posted earlier, which you think were incompetently handled, I’d be happy to discuss them.   Cursory non-precedent rulings on the emergency docket have been the norm since the beginning.   The lower court judge surely knows this.   So yes, I do think that generally unexplained emergency docket decisions are competent since that is the way it’s been handled for 200 years. If the litigants desire a fully detailed legal opinion, fully resolving all issues, they must proceed on the normal docket after grinding through the lower courts.

Even though I do not think over-use the emergency docket is an existential threat to democracy, that does not mean I think the current situation is good. The emergency docket is being over - used.   I’m happy to  apportion blame between Trump and his extremely zealous and litigious opponents, as I mentioned in my reply to James above

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I concluded my career as a software developer, utilizing GCP to develop microservices for the airline IT industry. I primarily worked in what is known as "ticketing," and if you ever booked a ticket for travel in North America, it was likely processed multiple times using the systems I worked on. It was interesting work, and I did enjoy it for the most part, but I had to retire early to take care of my wife, who has early-onset Alzheimer's. If not, I would have gladly worked until age 65 to amass a little more wealth and avoid the nightmare of finding and affording healthcare before age 65 without getting it through my private employer. My job enacted a return-to-office policy that was impossible for me to honor, and at about the same time, they offered a generous voluntary severance plan. I requested an exception to continue working from home, but the VSP offer would expire before they could determine if the exception would be granted. So, I took the VSP, and haven't regretted it, other than the whole healthcare issue. I wonder how much of that will be weaponized and used against me, at some later date? Haha.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I got my wife on Medicare, so she's all good. I have 26 months till I can get on it, though! In the meantime, I have to do something else, and, aside from finding another job, which is not possible, my only option at my age is to enroll in ACA. You can't even do "catastrophic" policies anymore at my age. In Texas, and I'm sure it's similar elsewhere, you must be 30 years of age or younger to qualify for a catastrophic policy. Exceptions can be made, but you have to be destitute to qualify, which is not my case, and I wouldn't want it to be either. From what I can tell, the system is designed to push everyone who cannot obtain insurance through their private employer and who is not eligible for Medicare onto the ACA. It makes sense because you want everyone to be in the risk pool, but at the same time, the ACA is not affordable for way too many people. The enhanced premium tax credits for the ACA helped significantly with affordability, but if they don't extend those, a large number of people will lose health insurance because they can't afford it. Estimates indicate that 5 million people will lose coverage entirely, and 8 million will have to pay the full premium cost, which is at least $1,000/month for a single person. And that's just for the privilege of having the insurance. If you want to access healthcare, you will be paying significantly more out of pocket because deductibles range from $10,000/year and up. I can afford the premium, and I'll have to pay it, whatever it turns out to be, but this is what they mean when they say our healthcare system is seriously broken and dysfunctional when it comes to providing affordable healthcare. I know several people who intend to go uninsured if the enhanced premium tax credits are not extended into 2026, and even some individuals who are currently uninsured because they can't afford it.