General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSenate Dems introduce bill re SCOTUS Shadow Docket
NEW: Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), introduce a bill to require Supreme Court justices to provide written explanations and a vote breakdown for decisions on their emergency docket, also known as shadow docket.
End snip.
Good. There's one thing we can do, for all the pearl clutchers. It might be blocked. It might not pass. But we are doing something and getting the magats on the record. Better than a sternly written letter, IMHO.
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
MOMFUDSKI
(6,273 posts)is available. DAILY
yo
B.See
(1,652 posts)their 'shadow' docket ( that's shadow as in, underhandedly clandestine actions they don't even have to explain, much less tell anyone about) throughout Trump's residency, to have it HIS way.
RainCaster
(11,043 posts)One that has Real Power- power to punish and remove those who ignore the common forms of ethical rules that the rest of us have to live by. Removal can be temporary or permanent.
FBaggins
(26,998 posts)Congress lacks the power to pass such a law.
Not that well really find out - as the law wont pass
Hermit-The-Prog
(34,088 posts)In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
FBaggins
(26,998 posts)Just as Congress is the judge of their own procedures/rules, SCOTUS controls theirs.
Congress could no more require written rulings than they could require supermajorities to overturn earlier decisions.
Celerity
(44,498 posts)WASHINGTON, D.C. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), along with more than a dozen other Senate Democrats, introduced a bill on Wednesday requiring U.S. Supreme Court justices to provide written explanations and record votes for decisions in their emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket. Our Shadow Docket Sunlight Act would open these decisions to greater public view and scrutiny literally bringing light and accountability to outcomes of important cases now handed down in peremptory silence, Blumenthal said in a statement.
The courts shadow docket includes requests for immediate action from the court and primarily consists of requests to pause a lower courts order, which voids a decision in a case while an appeal is ongoing. These cases require extraordinary circumstances and proof that people would suffer irreparable harm if the ruling was left in place. The justices have previously utilized the shadow docket to make decisions on COVID-19 policies, abortion access, immigration and redistricting.
In one of the most recent cases on the shadow docket, the Court granted requests from Louisiana, Black voters and civil rights organizations to allow the states new congressional map to remain in place while they considered an appeal over a lower court ruling that struck it down. Unlike the normal appeals process, cases that go through the Courts shadow docket dont have a full briefing and oral argument. The decisions are usually handed down in just a few days or weeks, released in short written orders with little to no reasoning often not saying which justices supported or opposed it.
Blumenthal, a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, introduced the Shadow Docket Sunlight Act to try to increase transparency within the nations highest court. This bill is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Il.) and others including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). This bill requires justices to provide a written explanation and indication of how each voted for decisions on the shadow docket. It also requires the Federal Judicial Center to report the Supreme Courts compliance with the law to Congress each year.
snip
KS Toronado
(17,856 posts)(like they're above the law) can we lock them up?
Cheezoholic
(2,098 posts)make them pay to get their robes washed. Put a quarter slot on the bathroom door. I'm done with them.
onenote
(43,241 posts)Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution prohibits the compensation paid to an Article III judge from being reduced during their term in office.
KS Toronado
(17,856 posts)There's always a way.
onenote
(43,241 posts)Making up shit isn't a great look.
KS Toronado
(17,856 posts)![](http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0184.gif)
![](http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0158.gif)
![](http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/animated/anim_19.gif)
FBaggins
(26,998 posts)Lots of state supreme courts have ruled (for instance) that education is a state constitutional obligation and mandated that the state legislature increase funding. It would be easy to say that the constitution restricts Congress from defunding a coequal branch of government.
And it would be unanimous.
KS Toronado
(17,856 posts)attempting to get the SCOTUS to explain themselves about their Shadow Docket to the voters?
FBaggins
(26,998 posts)But it isnt
onenote
(43,241 posts)Your post suggested that Congress "reclassify" Supreme Court justices (or maybe just some of them?) as 'Article XXX" judges. What the heck does that mean. Article III, which expressly bars reducing the compensation of an Article III judge, and which also expressly defines the Supreme Court justices as Article III judges, is a reference to the US Constitution, which has seven "articles"? Where would one find "Article XXX"? Is that supposed to be a reference to an amendment to the Constitution?
onenote
(43,241 posts)And it's not likely to be enacted any time soon or take effect until after challenges are brought.
Cheezoholic
(2,098 posts)I don't want the clerks working for the Seditious 6 anywhere near my government in the future anyway. I don't care, I'm that far gone now. Fuck 'em.
Takket
(21,896 posts)FBaggins
(26,998 posts)it does