Posts Made 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, 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 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 Rod Kaufman

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.

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 Jim Moscheck

Every other website loads instantly for me, but astromart is slow as molasses.

A-mart  occasionally misbehaves for me.  Super frustrating when you type a long and detailed reply, and then the website refuses to upload it.  Right now it seems to be working fine for me.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"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."

Jim, as I had noted in my post, I was referencing the lower court judge who complained about the lack of direction and guidance from SCOTUS in their generally unexplained shadow docket decisions along with their statements of de-facto like precedents on the one hand and their apparent denials of this on the other. THAT does not seem like judicial competence, does it?

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 think one of the things the CNN article pointed out, though, was that Kavanaugh did say the emergency docket orders "command respect," and chastised lower courts for not following them. That certainly sounds like precedent by another name. On the other hand, lower court judges are frustrated by the Supreme Court's lack of clear guidance on emergency rulings. So, clearly, there is a gap here that feels like it is the responsibility of the SCOTUS to fill, and that is, if they want their emergency order to be followed, then their wishes need to be clear and transparent, regardless of whether they are just denying or granting a stay.

Sorry for the silence, Rod and James, I’m back in Indiana and busy.   I certainly think James has a point 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.

Geeze, and I was just a bookkeeper…. 😳

Lots to unpackage about health insurance (and the web of course) in your super informative posts James.

Thanks for updating and entrusting us with a bit of knowledge about your wife.   I am sure she is in the best hands with you and your family, and I hope it does not get too difficult too soon.  jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

So my daughter's at the airport today , 10-5-25, in Denver awaiting her return flight to California after completing this 31 mile K-Run:  

https://tacobell50k.com/

Notables from the advertisement of the above run:  "SURVIVORS will eventually get a commemorative item after successful completion of the run."  "No on-course Pepto, Alka Seltzer, Pepcid A/C, Mylanta will be allowed!"

Then she sends me this while waiting at the airport for her return flight to California, keeping in mind the average gas price here is $4.65/gallon and the price you see in Colorado is airport pricing...

PPS: Don't get me started on Ca gas prices and all that goes with it...

Impressive race!   Those gas prices don’t look right to me….   I think it was $3 bucks and change when left Denver a few days ago, but the picture is clear.   I wonder what I missed?