No explanation

Is the use of the “emergency docket” by the U.S. Supreme Court a crisis?

Or is it an opportunity?

The emergency docket, in case you haven’t been following the news, consists of quick rulings by the Supreme Court without explanation. These days those are usually appeals about rulings that someone in the Golden Palace (fka the White House) doesn’t like.

The Supreme Court just says “Nah,” doesn’t say anything else, and a lower court ruling is no more.

For some reason, a lot of judges and lawyers find this annoying. It’s also been called a judicial crisis: The New York Times, in a recent article with the headline “Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders.”

The judges doing the faulting were 47 out of 65 who responded to a survey. I guess that might be statistically significant — there are more 1,400 federal judges — but more Democratic appointees than Republican appointees responded to the survey. Make of that what you will. I enjoy nitpicking.

Anyhow, maybe this is a crisis if good rulings are being thwarted. But consider the bright side — there is now established precedent for not setting precedents and not explaining anything!

Why not follow the Supreme Court’s example?

If the top court doesn’t explain anything, why should lower courts? Just rule and stop worrying. Think of all the time and effort this will save.

Favorite line from the Times article: “Many of those who declined to participate did not give a reason.”

You see? It’s already happening.

I won’t explain why.

Lawyers can take advantage of this too. Ask for the release of your legal immigrant or free speech clients and shut up. What’s the point of a detailed argument?

Then you have time to attack issues in bulk and flood the emergency docket.

Melting Ice: Who are the real snowflakes?

OK, there’s a lot of sensitivity in every part of the political spectrum, but you wouldn’t think the guys with the masks and the guns could be insecure. It turns out they are.

For some head-shaking reading, I recommend a recent 51-page ruling by a federal judge in Illinois that describes some tiny protests in the “unassuming village of Broadview” being used as an excuse for a military invasion.

Among other things, we learn that gas masks are scary: “Defendants’ counsel repeatedly referred to the idea that protesters who wear gas masks are demonstrating a desire to do physical violence to law enforcement, even when pressed by the court that masks are protective equipment, not offensive weapons.”

Well, there could be head butts, I suppose.

There’s more: “Additionally, the court notes that despite the claim that protesters are wearing gas masks, most of the photos submitted by defendants show protesters wearing Covid-19 masks.”

Clearly, a liberal provocation.