SCOTUS

[dislaxxic]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

[jhu72]

... to make things nice and clear. I called her a "LYING BAG OF SH*T", because she is. Dislax identified the issue perfectly! This LBS has on multiple occasions come out and talked to the press, trying to convince all of us that the court doesn't just pull decisions out of their collective asses according to the majority ideological predisposition. She tells us to read the written decision, we may not agree with the decision but we should see their reasoning. The last time she did one of these pressers was the day before the releases of this latest decision. SHE LIED, THEY DID NOT RELEASE A WRITTEN DECISION, explaining their though process. Roberts who has given the same presser on at least one occasion prior to Ginsburg's death knows what they are doing is wrong!!! The reason he most likely voted with the minority is because he didn't want to be called or thought of as a LYING BAG OF SH*T.

This written reasoning is pretty much SOP for the court. It was not until Coney Barrett took her seat, that this not following procedure became the standard procedure. The shadow docket and no explanation of a decision of significance. There is no better way for the court to engender distrust. This court, 5 of the 9 have proven themselves to be a Star Chamber. They cannot be trusted. The lack of transparency is stunning.

If my calling her a LYING BAG OF SH*T offends you, tough! Live with it. I recognize full well the faux outrage is just right wing dumbassery, a game dumbasses feel compelled to play.

[JoeMauer89]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

[cradleandshoot]

Read the article that was linked!! Barrett makes statements that not only shade the truth but most clearly contradict the truth. Here's a chance to go beneath the surface and look at watch ACTUALLY happened...then debate it Your usual devolution into personal attack and mockery is predictable and unhelpful. Take Joe's advice and contribute to the actual discussion...in this case, a conversation about the shadow docket...

..

So that justified 72 calling her a POS?? The other day I believe it was TLD bemoaned the lack of common decency in politics and on this forum. I made no personal attack Dis so keep your delusional fantasies to yourself. Unless you agree with 72 the Justice Barrett is a POS?

[cradleandshoot]

... to make things nice and clear. I called her a "LYING BAG OF SH*T", because she is. Dislax identified the issue perfectly! This LBS has on multiple occasions come out and talked to the press, trying to convince all of us that the court doesn't just pull decisions out of their collective asses according to the majority ideological predisposition. She tells us to read the written decision, we may not agree with the decision but we should see their reasoning. The last time she did one of these pressers was the day before the releases of this latest decision. SHE LIED, THEY DID NOT RELEASE A WRITTEN DECISION, explaining their though process. Roberts who has given the same presser on at least one occasion prior to Ginsburg's death knows what they are doing is wrong!!! The reason he most likely voted with the minority is because he didn't want to be called or thought of as a LYING BAG OF SH*T.

This written reasoning is pretty much SOP for the court. It was not until Coney Barrett took her seat, that this not following procedure became the standard procedure. The shadow docket and no explanation of a decision of significance. There is no better way for the court to engender distrust. This court, 5 of the 9 have proven themselves to be a Star Chamber. They cannot be trusted. The lack of transparency is stunning.

If my calling her a LYING BAG OF SH*T offends you, tough! Live with it. I recognize full well the faux outrage is just right wing dumbassery, a game dumbasses feel compelled to play.

So I'm guessing that common decency just got thrown out the window. Go find yourself an anger management class, you could use it.

[cradleandshoot]

ahhh, let me be clear.
I don't agree with calling ACB a "POS'.

I do think she's a hypocrite, an ideologue.

I agree with Roberts.

Why don't you take your concerns to the poster who made the disgusting comment? You suddenly at a loss for words if it means criticizing a poster you agree with?

[a fan]

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.

It is a common occurrence, Joe. Dis spelled it out for you. Are you on board with this little game, or not?

[jhu72]

... to make things nice and clear. I called her a "LYING BAG OF SH*T", because she is. Dislax identified the issue perfectly! This LBS has on multiple occasions come out and talked to the press, trying to convince all of us that the court doesn't just pull decisions out of their collective asses according to the majority ideological predisposition. She tells us to read the written decision, we may not agree with the decision but we should see their reasoning. The last time she did one of these pressers was the day before the releases of this latest decision. SHE LIED, THEY DID NOT RELEASE A WRITTEN DECISION, explaining their though process. Roberts who has given the same presser on at least one occasion prior to Ginsburg's death knows what they are doing is wrong!!! The reason he most likely voted with the minority is because he didn't want to be called or thought of as a LYING BAG OF SH*T.

This written reasoning is pretty much SOP for the court. It was not until Coney Barrett took her seat, that this not following procedure became the standard procedure. The shadow docket and no explanation of a decision of significance. There is no better way for the court to engender distrust. This court, 5 of the 9 have proven themselves to be a Star Chamber. They cannot be trusted. The lack of transparency is stunning.

If my calling her a LYING BAG OF SH*T offends you, tough! Live with it. I recognize full well the faux outrage is just right wing dumbassery, a game dumbasses feel compelled to play.

So I'm guessing that common decency just got thrown out the window. Go find yourself an anger management class, you could use it.

... more faux outrage hey minion, I have given her her chance, 2 strikes, along with the other 5. It has nothing to do with whether I agree with their decisions or not, they give me no way to judge whether I agree with them or not, after she assured me twice! She lied. Either they change or they are the end of the court. Anyone who pays attention to the court knows this behavior is highly problematic. Hell the Chief Justice knows the score.

[jhu72]

ahhh, let me be clear.
I don't agree with calling ACB a "POS'.

I do think she's a hypocrite, an ideologue.

I agree with Roberts.

Why don't you take your concerns to the poster who made the disgusting comment? You suddenly at a loss for words if it means criticizing a poster you agree with?

... there is no need for him to. We understand each other's position perfectly. Hell we even understand you perfectly with your little game.

[MDlaxfan76]

ahhh, let me be clear.
I don't agree with calling ACB a "POS'.

I do think she's a hypocrite, an ideologue.

I agree with Roberts.

Why don't you take your concerns to the poster who made the disgusting comment? You suddenly at a loss for words if it means criticizing a poster you agree with?

I don't need to attack anyone to be clear that I disagree with the terminology if not underlying rationale of the sentiment. I hadn't said so out loud (one more time) but as there seemed to be confusion about what I think, I'm correcting any misimpression.

She's a hypocrite, and ideologue.
And yes, her statements constituted a bald-faced lie, however nice they sounded when stated.

and yes, it's not ok.

[dislaxxic]

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

Nothing's keeping me up at night Joe...and as usual, i have to guess at what you mean. Do i "fear" what this conservative court is doing with the Shadow Docket? No fear involved. What it WILL do is ramp up my criticism of the aims this rightwing court appears to have...of quashing reasonable dissent and disagreement, of becoming "activist" from an ideological point of view, and of how the hypocrisy of the right in general, and this rightwing court specifically, is turning the country and its jurisprudence in a sharply rightward direction...a real bad idea IMO.

See, that's what we do here Joe...and since you don't want to opine on the merits of this discussion, i'm getting a good idea of where to file your protestations and disapproval about the civility and intentions of posters when it comes to political discussions...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

how about simply being concerned that if the credibility of the Court becomes badly undermined, we could lose the fundamental underpinning of democracy and the rule of law?

Does that sound overly hyperbolic? Well, all one needs to do is look around the world to see examples of such slides away from the rule of law, not men, to recognize that we really don't want to lose what has been built over many generations here in America. It's important.

I suspect most of us on here, including you, Joe, would agree with that statement.

We may have differing views on preferred policy outcomes, but most of us on here still believe that we need a balance of powers that includes the Court and the rule of law, not men.

[Peter Brown]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

how about simply being concerned that if the credibility of the Court becomes badly undermined, we could lose the fundamental underpinning of democracy and the rule of law?

Does that sound overly hyperbolic? Well, all one needs to do is look around the world to see examples of such slides away from the rule of law, not men, to recognize that we really don't want to lose what has been built over many generations here in America. It's important.

I suspect most of us on here, including you, Joe, would agree with that statement.

We may have differing views on preferred policy outcomes, but most of us on here still believe that we need a balance of powers that includes the Court and the rule of law, not men.

It’s equal parts hyperbole and stupidity.

Let me get this straight. The side that’s constantly preventing government overreach and abuse, supporting all manners of speech, and freeing people to live without fear of government reprisal is ‘totalitarian’, whereas the side that demands more government at every turn, more government sponsored mandates/lockdowns/penalties, and less speech is uhhhhh the ‘good guys’?!?

[a fan]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

how about simply being concerned that if the credibility of the Court becomes badly undermined, we could lose the fundamental underpinning of democracy and the rule of law?

Joe, like Pete, is convinced a bunch of 40+ year old lacrosse fans are a bunch of bomb throwing uber-liberals.

It's awesome.

[Peter Brown]

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

So see this Joe? This is the kind of non-discussion, opinion driven re-direction you have quickly become famous for here in the politics threads. The EVIDENCE over the past year or two indicates that they (the conservatives on this SCOTUS) are, indeed, using this technique (the Shadow Docket) in an unprecedented way...look it up if you doubt that (yeah, so you can "converse" on the subject). Your choice of the word "champion" adds an element to the discussion that is interesting...as in, "How do you come up with the idea that this is a conscious tactic on their part??" Well, that's what we're talking about here, Joe. Look at the objective facts here...how many times has the Shadow Docket been used by this (yes, conservative) court...look at the issues that are APPEARING on the shadow docket, then discuss why, in these politically charged cases, the conservative members of the court are choosing to forego actual oral arguments, submitted briefs, etc. to air out the issue. Maybe you don't "know enough about" how the Supreme Court works to discuss it? You have said as much yourself.

So, instead of "guessing" at what opinions might form from those of us that HAVE been paying attention to this issue are...if you want to pipe up and insert yourself in these discussions...how about doing it on the substance of same??

..

So what's your fear if this continues to happen? Is this keeping you up at night?

Joe

how about simply being concerned that if the credibility of the Court becomes badly undermined, we could lose the fundamental underpinning of democracy and the rule of law?

Joe, like Pete, is convinced a bunch of 40+ year old lacrosse fans are a bunch of bomb throwing uber-liberals.

It's awesome.

There’s literally no far left position that the FLP here disagree with, so….what should we call it?

[a fan]

Let me get this straight. The side that’s constantly preventing government overreach and abuse, supporting all manners of speech

You just cheered on a bill restricting speech in Florida, Pete. Telling teachers that they can't use the word "him" or "daddy".

Worst. Troll. Ever. Can't make it five seconds without contradicting yourself.

.....and freeing people to live without fear of government reprisal is ‘totalitarian’, whereas the side that demands more government at every turn

Again, DeSantis made government 10% bigger. Trump, over 50% bigger. And you cheered every second of it. And would vote for more of it.

Do you believe ANYTHING you say, Pete, for more than five seconds?

[Peter Brown]

Let me get this straight. The side that’s constantly preventing government overreach and abuse, supporting all manners of speech

You just cheered on a bill restricting speech in Florida, Pete. Telling teachers that they can't use the word "him" or "daddy".

Worst. Troll. Ever. Can't make it five seconds without contradicting yourself.

.....and freeing people to live without fear of government reprisal is ‘totalitarian’, whereas the side that demands more government at every turn

Again, DeSantis made government 10% bigger. Trump, over 50% bigger. And you cheered every second of it. And would vote for more of it.

Do you believe ANYTHING you say, Pete, for more than five seconds?

Uhhhh, I guess I was unaware that left lunatic public school teachers itching to tell 3 year old kids about the birds and bees constituted ‘free speech’. I would’ve classified that as a crime, myself.

I really don’t understand the new speech rules!!

[a fan]

There’s literally no far left position that the FLP here disagree with, so….what should we call it?

What should we call it? I'd call it: Pete making infantile strawmen, and claiming that anything he doesn't personally like "far left".

So making government 50%+ bigger in four years, and borrowing every penny to EXPLODE the size of government ?

Oh, that's not far left. Why? Oh, because "Pete sez so".

This forum is the first time in your life that you've had your tissue paper thin "values" challenged, Pete. It's HILARIOUS smelling the burning toast as you try and reconcile the reality that you were taught by socialist at a Big Government University....and this NEVER occurred to you until you arrived here.

But sure, FLP's, Pete. You're the biggest not-so-closeted liberal on the board.

[a fan]

Uhhhh, I guess I was unaware that left lunatic public school teachers itching to tell 3 year old kids about the birds and bees constituted ‘free speech’

Nope. You can keep telling yourself that's what the bill sez again and again and again.

But the folks here got a far, far better education than you obviously slept through at UFLorida, and can actually read Bills.

I really don’t understand the new speech rules!!

Yes. We know. What YOU think free speech means is: Pete gets to say anything he wants. Anyone else? Oh, we sue "those people" for breaking my new, shiny law that restricts speech.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Apologize in advance for the length of this post.

The problem with the so-called shadow docket and the Court's "emergency" intervention into the clean water case is best understood by comparing the the normal process by which a case reaches the Supreme Court and is then adjudicated, and the shadow docket process. Normally, as you all likely know, the Court takes cases from the final judgments of the Courts of Appeal. Those cases have been, therefore, through the trial court, which, with the litigants, is invested with the duty to develop the record of the facts that underlie the legal issues being contested. The case is then briefed and argued to the federal district judge. A reasoned decision is provided by the court. Then the record on appeal is bundled together, and the Court of Appeals examines the case for any errors of law, or misapprehension of the facts, by the lower court. They schedule briefing and hold arguments, and then issue a decision, that ultimately gets appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court then accepts the appeal -- with the full record on appeal, and all or nearly all of the issues ventilated very thoroughly, as you might expect in a case about, say, an executive agency's power to regulate matters bearing on the environment and water quality.

The shadow docket short circuits this well-known and empirically sound, time-honored process of adjudicating abstruse questions of federal statutory and constitutional law. In the case that started this recent thread/series of comments, there is no record on appeal; the case has only just reached the Court of Appeals, and that appeal is actually pending. In steps the Supreme Court, using powers that, under a long body of case authority, are only to be used in grave, grave emergencies where the threat of irreparable harm exists.

Here, the losing parties applied to the SCOTUS for a stay of the federal district judge's ruling, which had vacated a Trump era EPA regulation that prevented States from using their powers to block projects that may cause water pollution. Those parties jumped over the Court of Appeals and asked the Supreme Court to effectively pre-judge the merits...and the five conservatives did so, without much regard for the process or the fact that the matter before them was far, far short of fully briefed.

Kagan's dissent lays out the problems with this very clearly (I Have removed the case cites, but it is noteworthy that she cites to opinions written by very conservative members of the past-Court):

"Five months after the District Court remanded and vacated an Environmental Protection Agency rule, a group of States and industry organizations have asked us to stay the decision pending appeal, claiming that they will otherwise suffer irreparable harm. I would deny the request. This Court may stay a decision under review in a court of appeals “only in extraordinary circumstances” and “upon the weightiest considerations.” The applicants here have not met our standard because they have failed to substantiate their assertions of irreparable harm. The Court therefore has no warrant to grant emergency relief.

To obtain a stay in a case pending before an appellate court, a party (like the applicants here) must make a showing of “irreparabl[e] injur[y] absent a stay.” “A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review.” It disrupts the usual manner of hearing and considering an appeal before rendering a decision and granting relief. Our disruption of that normal order is justified only “rarely.” An applicant must show more than a likelihood of prevailing on the merits in the appellate court. It must also show an exceptional need for immediate relief. That means the applicant must (at the least) present evidence of irreversible injury—harm occurring during the appeals process that cannot be later redressed. And that evidence must clear a high bar. “[S]imply showing some possibility of irreparable injury fails to satisfy” our test. The applicant must offer concrete proof that irreparable harm is “likel[y]” to occur.

The applicants here have failed to meet that burden. They claim that the vacated rule gave them “protections” against States that previously “abuse[d]” their statutory authority to review infrastructure projects for compliance with water-quality standards. Application 25. But the ap-
plicants have not identified a single project that a State has obstructed in the five months since the District Court’s decision. Still more, they have not cited a single project that the court’s ruling threatens, or is likely to threaten, in the time before the appellate process concludes. The request for a stay rests on simple assertions—on conjectures, unsupported by any present-day evidence, about what States will now feel free to do. And the application fails to show that proper implementation of the reinstated regulatory regime—which existed for 50 years before the vacated rule came into effect—is incapable of countering whatever state overreach may (but may not) occur. Even the applicants’ own actions belie the need for a stay: Twice, the applicants waited a month before seeking that relief (the first time in the District Court, the second time here). While the applicants thus delayed, the appellate process went forward: The case will be fully briefed in the Court of Appeals next month. The applicants have given us no good reason to think that in the remaining time needed to decide the appeal, they will suffer irreparable harm.

By nonetheless granting relief, the Court goes astray. It provides a stay pending appeal, and thus signals its view of the merits, even though the applicants have failed to make the irreparable harm showing we have traditionally required. That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for
emergencies at all. The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations—except made without full briefing and argument. I respectfully dissent."

IN other words, well-heeled people and corporations can get special messaging on the merits from the Supreme Court, without briefing at all, and without the Court majority disclosing ANY of its reasoning. This is damaging to the process, damaging to the Court's institutional standing, and smacks of special interests having their way with the Court, while other weary travelers have to wait their turn. Kagan may well be the single smartest Justice on the Court, and is by no means some crazed liberal. That she got the Chief to sign on -- through the use of citation to earlier cases in which he and Rehnquist rejected these very sorts of decisions and decision-making end runs -- should tell us almost everything we need to know.