| dbp:text
|
- Outside of the merits cases, the Court issued a number of noteworthy rulings which merit more scrutiny than they have gotten. In important cases, it granted stays and injunctions that were both debatable and mysterious. The Court has not explained their legal basis and it is not even clear to what extent individual Justices agree with those decisions.... As the orders list comes to new prominence, understanding the Court requires us to understand its non-merits work – its shadow docket. (en)
- Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. (en)
- With a newly solidified bloc of five conservative Justices, it is not exactly surprising that a Republican administration would generally fare well... it is not obvious that it is a positive development... By waiting for most cases to go through multiple layers of review by lower courts... the Court gives itself the benefit of multiple rounds of briefing and argument... To abandon this norm only in cases in which the federal government is the complaining party is to invite serious objections grounded in fairness and equity... such a shift gives at least the appearance that the Court is showing favoritism not only for the federal government as a party, but for a specific political party when it's in control of the federal government. (en)
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
