Your question - what’s the thinking behind a decision - is not simply legitimate. It points to a serious problem: the ability of the majority of the Court to operate as a secret society, beholding to no one, not even its fellow members. No one should have to guess at the basis for a split decision. The Court should be obligated to explain itself whenever the minority chooses to express its view. If the legal questions are worth the time for a serious rebuttal, they are worth a serious explanation.
So my question to you, Adam, is how do “we the people” change the rules to eliminate the guessing and speculating?
Adam, while I have long been an admirer of yours, I think you are, in fact, being a bit naive here. I find it a bit ironic that you were impressed by the extent to which your AI engines considered irreparable injury/balance of the harms, while failing to consider that a refusal to do so seems to be a hall mark of the conservative wing in these, but not other, emergency cases. Vladeck’s analysis of Justice Kavanaugh’s inconsistency on this score is telling, and I commend it to you (in the unlikely event you are unaware of it). It’s not whining if you are both correct and harmed.
You’re so interesting! Thanks. “ … We all know that you’d sometimes have to peek at the merits to see if there’s standing. There’s a little cheating that goes on.” - Justice AMK at oral arg in American Electric v Connecticut 10-174
An excellent and fun essay. Thanks for writing it.
Your question - what’s the thinking behind a decision - is not simply legitimate. It points to a serious problem: the ability of the majority of the Court to operate as a secret society, beholding to no one, not even its fellow members. No one should have to guess at the basis for a split decision. The Court should be obligated to explain itself whenever the minority chooses to express its view. If the legal questions are worth the time for a serious rebuttal, they are worth a serious explanation.
So my question to you, Adam, is how do “we the people” change the rules to eliminate the guessing and speculating?
Adam, while I have long been an admirer of yours, I think you are, in fact, being a bit naive here. I find it a bit ironic that you were impressed by the extent to which your AI engines considered irreparable injury/balance of the harms, while failing to consider that a refusal to do so seems to be a hall mark of the conservative wing in these, but not other, emergency cases. Vladeck’s analysis of Justice Kavanaugh’s inconsistency on this score is telling, and I commend it to you (in the unlikely event you are unaware of it). It’s not whining if you are both correct and harmed.
"Again, this issue could go either way. It does seem weird that a third party could persuade a court to enjoin a mass layoff"
Being weird, though, is a matter of opinion, not a legal argument? For instance, I don't see anything weird here.
Thanks for putting this together.
Incisive and entertaining as ever, thanks.
You’re so interesting! Thanks. “ … We all know that you’d sometimes have to peek at the merits to see if there’s standing. There’s a little cheating that goes on.” - Justice AMK at oral arg in American Electric v Connecticut 10-174