"A new Supreme Court term officially begins on Monday, but the justices never really took a break: All summer long, they've used the shadow docket to radically alter the law with little or no explanation, almost always in President Donald Trump's favor. These aggressive interventions have drawn exasperated objections from dissenting justices and lower-court judges, who are left to decipher what the Republican-appointed supermajority is doing."
"I think judges should criticize those justices within the confines of judicial norms. I would not, if I were a lower-court judge, say: "The Republican justices are doing this because they're Republicans." I would say: "It is my task to follow the orders of the Supreme Court, and I am incapable of doing so because the court is not explaining itself-and when it does explain itself, the rules it announces are inconsistent and incoherent.""
The Supreme Court used the shadow docket throughout the summer to issue orders that significantly altered the law, frequently benefiting President Donald Trump. Many of those orders offered little or no explanation, producing inconsistent and sometimes incoherent rules. Dissenting Supreme Court justices and lower-court judges have sharply objected, struggling to interpret and apply the court's unelaborated rulings. The pushback has generated debate about how forcefully judges should publicly criticize the high court. A suggested approach is for judges to condemn unclear or unexplained decisions within judicial norms, emphasizing inability to follow such orders rather than alleging partisan motives.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]