MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:33 am
JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:32 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:27 am
JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:17 am
dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 07, 2022 9:13 am
add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...
Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”
But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.
..
The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!
Joe
Of course what she
says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"
Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.
Do you have an opinion about the process?
The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.
Joe
Except this has become a common occurrence
under this Court...a dramatic expansion of the usage of the shadow docket...you might want to homework that one before saying it hasn't.
quickie primer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket
Since 2017[edit]
Use of the shadow docket for important rulings has increased precipitously since 2017.[9][15] This coincided with the presidency of Donald Trump, when the Department of Justice sought emergency relief (generally to stay lower court rulings against its executive actions[16]) from the Supreme Court at a far higher rate than had previous administrations, filing 41 emergency applications over Trump's four years in office (by comparison, over the prior 16 years the Obama administration and the Bush administration together filed only eight emergency applications).[9]
Rulings made by way of the shadow docket during Trump's term included rulings over his travel ban,[clarification needed] the diversion of military funds to the construction of a border wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, the prohibition of transgender people from openly serving in the United States military, use of the federal death penalty,[clarification needed] and restrictions on asylum seekers from Central America.[17][9] The Supreme Court granted 28 of the Trump administration's requests; in the 16 years prior, only four were granted.[15]
Following Trump's departure from office, the Court has made rulings against the Biden administration, putting an end to a federal eviction moratorium and nullifying the White House's attempt to end the Remain in Mexico policy. The latter was decided in a order two paragraphs long.[18] In September 2021, the shadow docket gained more prominence after the Court declined to block the Texas Heartbeat Act from being enforced and decided some technical matters concerning how it could be challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson.[4]
In 2021, both the House Judiciary Committee and its Senate counterpart held its first hearings on the practice in February and September respectively.[4]
Does MD have any opinion about a fellow FLP calling Amy Coney Barrett a, let me quote, “POS”. I assume we all know what the acronym stands for.
It’s probably worth recalling that Amy took in two young kids of color, adopting them and providing them love, education, pride, family, and time. So I’m fascinated that the FLP stands on such righteous ground regarding the one female of the five votes, feebly calling a woman like this a “POS”.
I think you’d need to be Jesus Christ himself to have the standing to call a woman like this a “POS”.
Still no response from our tolerant left here, though. Just tryin’ to get others to learn all about the shadow docket, the new excuse to call a female justice a “POS”.
Too rich.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)