Roberts joins liberals in criticizing ‘shadow docket’ pollution ruling

[j brown's body]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

 

[OpportunityCost]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

Everything but the facts of the case. The facts were that one judge wanted to reinstate an EPA rule that was struck down already as too broad and invasive to apply. The clean waters act was used to apply to any standing body of water, up to and including a ditch or puddle in a yard---not through the legislation but through an overly wide interpretation under the Obama administration. The immediate need is that one single lower court should not be able to reverse something that affects every state and the entire country.

 

[j brown's body]

Everything but the facts of the case. The facts were that one judge wanted to reinstate an EPA rule that was struck down already as too broad and invasive to apply. The clean waters act was used to apply to any standing body of water, up to and including a ditch or puddle in a yard---not through the legislation but through an overly wide interpretation under the Obama administration. The immediate need is that one single lower court should not be able to reverse something that affects every state and the entire country.

A rationale for using the shadow docket, but not a good reason, as even the plaintiffs didn't claim it was an emergency.

 

[OpportunityCost]

A rationale for using the shadow docket, but not a good reason, as even the plaintiffs didn't claim it was an emergency.

The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.

 

[j brown's body]

The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.

We can't know that. The decision was released without reasoning.

 

[bongsaway]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

I think these conservative judges are doing their best to have the chief justice vote with the dem picks more often than the R's. This is an abuse and at least the chief justice has the balls to say so.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I think these conservative judges are doing their best to have the chief justice vote with the dem picks more often than the R's. This is an abuse and at least the chief justice has the balls to say so.

LOL, no. Roberts voted with them. That's all. Your reasoning is flawed in its premise, no one is forcing Roberts to vote either way, he votes in the way he sees the constitutionality of the arguments.

 

[OpportunityCost]

We can't know that. The decision was released without reasoning.

Look at the law being discussed, its the Clean air and water Act specifically navigable waters. What industrial concerns are arguing is they shouldn't need to wait to begin a project and spend time and money on it, only to have tribal concerns and environmental groups object and not only halt the process but shut it down after the project has begun. They wanted the 50 year precedent to be adhered to. They are objecting to the judge reinstating the Obama era reasoning, creating a nationwide ruling from a district court. The harm can be seen from numerous views, the easiest to suss out is that companies don't want to wait until they have irreparable harm before waiting months to get a verdict. They want a go ahead from current law.

District judges should have zero power to issue nation wide stays. SCOTUS has worked to curtail such things in the past. The shadow docket is a way for the court to say the merits are specious without having to explain and rule, essentially telling lower courts to quit being blatant **** ups.

 

[highroller]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

This court will go down as the most radical and activist in the history of this nation.

 

[OpportunityCost]

This court will go down as the most radical and activist in the history of this nation.

That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.

 

[highroller]

That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.

You ain’t seen nothing yet, but you won’t see it as activist rulings because you’ll like the slant of the activism.

 

[HangLow]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

​

 

[Gateman_Wen]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

The RWNJ supreme court is the end of our nation as we know it unless something happens.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

The emergency is a lower court setting policy for the entire US with a rule that was already struck down. Bad precedent.

Then why wouldn't they say so?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Look at the law being discussed, its the Clean air and water Act specifically navigable waters. What industrial concerns are arguing is they shouldn't need to wait to begin a project and spend time and money on it, only to have tribal concerns and environmental groups object and not only halt the process but shut it down after the project has begun. They wanted the 50 year precedent to be adhered to. They are objecting to the judge reinstating the Obama era reasoning, creating a nationwide ruling from a district court. The harm can be seen from numerous views, the easiest to suss out is that companies don't want to wait until they have irreparable harm before waiting months to get a verdict. They want a go ahead from current law.

District judges should have zero power to issue nation wide stays. SCOTUS has worked to curtail such things in the past. The shadow docket is a way for the court to say the merits are specious without having to explain and rule, essentially telling lower courts to quit being blatant **** ups.

Then why didn't they say so?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

That would be the Hughes or Warren courts, both of which inflated government authority and power at the expense of the citizenry.

The Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You ain’t seen nothing yet, but you won’t see it as activist rulings because you’ll like the slant of the activism.

Yep, progressives love authoritarianism so long as they get to decide who makes the rules.

 

[TurtleDude]

The RWNJ supreme court is the end of our nation as we know it unless something happens.

oh the drama!

 

[TurtleDude]

The Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.

I doubt the bill of rights will get shit upon anywhere near it did under the FDR regime

 

[OpportunityCost]

Then why didn't they say so?

LOL because they don't on these type of decisions.

Plus, if you knew previous responses on the Clean Water and Air Act and that the EPA overreached completely, you would know that they prefer the EPA be restricted to the language of the act and not promulgate regulations that allow them to bypass court adjudicating arguments between the EPA and US citizens.

If you follow the history of the act and previous actions by the court to restrict the act, you would already know everything I typed.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The Roberts (LMAO) cort will top them all.

Seriously doubt it.

 

[TomFitz]

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers. The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be. ...Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

...Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order."

Link

The radicalization of the court is underway. Shadow docket, no reasoning for their decisions. Barrett's comment is embarrassing.

The radicalization of the Court is almost complete.

When they take up reversing Brown, you’ll know that they’ve achieved their goal.

 

[highroller]

Yep, progressives love authoritarianism so long as they get to decide who makes the rules.

I agree you authoritarians love the rule making ability of 5 people.

 

[TomFitz]

LOL because they don't on these type of decisions.

Plus, if you knew previous responses on the Clean Water and Air Act and that the EPA overreached completely, you would know that they prefer the EPA be restricted to the language of the act and not promulgate regulations that allow them to bypass court adjudicating arguments between the EPA and US citizens.

If you follow the history of the act and previous actions by the court to restrict the act, you would already know everything I typed.

You would have a point if it were not for the fact that this maneuver was done without any arguments, court hearings, or any written decision whatsoever.

The conservatives on the Court did big oil’s bidding, and did not explain themselves. They served one of the GOP’s core constituencies behind closed doors without comment or explanation.

The EPA has had the power to regulate discharges into Recieving Waters of the United States since it’s inception. NPDES Permits are required for discharge into rivers and tributaries.

The Army Corps of Engineers frequently has jurisdiction as well.

 

[highroller]

The conservatives on the Court did big oil’s bidding, and did not explain themselves. They served one of the GOP’s core constituencies behind closed doors without comment or explanation.

The wet dream of conservatives since the 80s