Red Mosquito

Norris wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Norris wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Norris wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Wasn't the last guy being accused of gang rape without even the slightest evidence?

Who cares about any of this. It's theater!

That was two ago. The last guy was Amy Coney Barrett, and she was accused of being in a Catholic cult of some kind

there's only one kind of Catholic cult and it's called Catholicism

oh please Opus Dei is way more cultish than standard catholicism

Hey, guys, chud's read a Dan Brown book!

no i haven't

fine i read the fucking da vinci code but i already knew about opus dei from crazy ass catholic school teachers

Norris wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Norris wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

Norris wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

The Argonaut wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Wasn't the last guy being accused of gang rape without even the slightest evidence?

Who cares about any of this. It's theater!

That was two ago. The last guy was Amy Coney Barrett, and she was accused of being in a Catholic cult of some kind

there's only one kind of Catholic cult and it's called Catholicism

oh please Opus Dei is way more cultish than standard catholicism

Hey, guys, chud's read a Dan Brown book!

no i haven't

fine i read the fucking da vinci code but i already knew about opus dei from crazy ass catholic school teachers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated an environmental regulation from the Trump administration that restricted the role states play in enforcing the Clean Water Act.

The court’s brief, unsigned order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on an emergency application.

Four justices dissented, saying the majority had used a case on what critics call the court’s shadow docket to issue a significant ruling without adequate consideration.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan said the court should have allowed the appeal to proceed in the ordinary course.

“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,” she wrote. “By nonetheless granting relief, the court goes astray.”

She added: “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.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Kagan’s dissent.

elliseamos wrote:Imagine a world where Merrick Garland is there and rainbows sprinkle us with candy everyday!

B wrote:

elliseamos wrote:Imagine a world where Merrick Garland is there and rainbows sprinkle us with candy everyday!

--- wrote:big day for groomers

4/5 wrote:I wonder (and I really mean that I don't know and am curious) if the so-called shadow docket is being used more frequently/on more substantive issues or if it's merely being pointed out more frequently. Maybe GH or Chris could shed some light on this.

B wrote:Have they historically used it to decide the most controversial cases of the day?

Green Habit wrote:

4/5 wrote:I wonder (and I really mean that I don't know and am curious) if the so-called shadow docket is being used more frequently/on more substantive issues or if it's merely being pointed out more frequently. Maybe GH or Chris could shed some light on this.

I don't know if it's being used more either, but I think the outrage over it is really dumb. The Court has long been granting/denying stays, issuing summary reversals, to say nothing of the cert denials that the grand majority of most petitions get--all without oral arguments. In some cases, the shadow docket just avoids delaying the inevitable.