The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Thomas Raises Concerns About Increase in Expedited Appeals on "Shadow Docket"
Speaking at the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference, Justice Thomas echoes some of the concerns expressed by Justice Kavanaugh.
Just as Justice Kavanaugh spoke to the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference today, Justice Thomas spoke to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference. (Justices commonly speak at the judicial conference for the circuit for which they are circuit justice.) As with Justice Kavanaugh's remarks, press was in attendance, but the reporting on Justice Thomas's remarks focused more on the sorts of things political reporters care about (his comments about the culture of Washington, DC) than those things that actually provide information on the functioning and potential future direction of the Court. (In this way, the reporting confirms comments about court coverage Sarah Isgur made at today's lunch at the Eleventh Circuit conference.)
For those who care about law and the courts, the most interesting aspect of Justice Thomas's remarks may have been his comments about the "expedited docket" -- or what many people call the "shadow docket." Like Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Thomas expressed concerns about the pressure the increase in expedited filings place on the Court. Emergency filings seeking relief from extraordinary relief (such as when district courts issue national injunctions) "short circuit our process," Justice Thomas remarked, adding "The way we're doing it now is not a thorough way" of doing it.
Justice Thomas further noted that such filings have increased because advocates are getting more aggressive and clever in pursuing such legal strategies, putting the court on a compressed schedule, and lower courts are issuing more national injunctions. The latter, Justice Thomas remarked, are something the Court will "have to address."
Justice Thomas also echoed Justice Kavanaugh's approval of the new oral argument process. The new format, which combines traditional open questioning with seriatim questioning by seniority, is "more thorough" and "polite," even if it means arguments last longer.
Among some of the other tidbits from his remarks that may be overlooked, Justice Thomas said that the Court's composition after Justice Breyer was confirmed -- and which remained stable for over a decade -- was his "favorite court." That Court, Justice Thomas said, was like a family. It "may have been a dysfunctional family" but it was a family, he said. Something like the leak of the Dobbs opinion draft would have been "unthinkable" during that time.
Justice Thomas also praised Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, saying she deserves far more credit than she gets, and repeated concerns that a Court in which eight of nine justices attended the same two elite law schools does not "reflect the country." He also explained why he tries to make his judicial opinions clear and understandable to non-lawyers. It was also noted that in four years Justice Thomas will be the longest-serving justice in the Court's history.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sarah Isgur -- the former Ted Cruz and Donald Trump mouthpiece -- was the luncheon speaker? Was this a Federalist Society event?
(Trump and Cruz? Which side did she take when Trump was calling Mrs. Cruz a hideous pig, Cruz was demanding that Trump stop, Trump responded by illustrating his disparagement and dared Cruz to do something, and Cruz did . . .by figuratively fellating Trump for several years?)
(Does anyone know whether the Cruz children are in counseling, trying to sift their confusion about how a father is supposed to act when someone attacks the mother?)
Sarah Isgur was never a Trump supporter. She did serve as DOJ spokesperson at the beginning of the Trump administration. She left, and has been doing anti-Trump stuff since, including hosting a podcast with very prominent neverTrumper David French. (I'm not sure if she has described herself as neverTrump, but if she hasn't, I think anyone listening to the podcast would conclude that she is.)
I think I remember her mouthpiecing for some of the more revolting elements of Trump’s early work. I do not recall observing a gun at her temple as she defended bigotry and cruelty.
Sorry to about an increase in the workload. In "retirement" I've never been so busy. Relying on law to quell misbehaving is a poor choice, next to the last choice.
These troublesome days were foretold before my birth. My grandparents political books laid out what is going on now. Our Republic is in name only, but it still lives in the hearts and minds of those who choose to continue the 'experiment.' Infiltration via excessive pedantic immigrants has sapped and impurified our culture by their unwillingness to change their destructive habits of their births' indoctrination via, largely, Old World degeneracies.
Matters nothing to have conclusions based on prejudicial notions to what I'm referring to above. Knowing history, such as the waves crossing Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years will be enough to confirm.
Just a thought exercise here. If a liberal advocacy group offered Clarence Thomas a seven figure monthly retainer for life to retire from SCOTUS, would he shit or go blind?
Behold and enjoy!
For an abbreviated version . . .. and now, this.
(Americans who do not watch Last Week Tonight are poor citizens who, thank goodness, will be replaced.)
Clarence Thomas provided the fifth vote in two of the worst Supreme Court decisions in U.S. history, Bush v. Gore and Trump v. Anderson. His wife actively participated in a seditious effort to prevent Joe Biden, the clear winner of the 2020 presidential election, from obtaning his rightful designation by Congress as president elect on Jan. 6, 2021. The good Justice says that Washington is a nasty place. He's right.
There were 7 votes to overrule the Florida supreme court in 2000. And no, Biden was not a clear winner. He did not get a majority of the votes cast and counted on election day.
Gore was not a clear winner...
And Trump v Anderson was unanimous about Trump winning, there was merely some disagreement about the basis.
.
By 8 p.m. on election day, or midnight? Local time, or is there a national standard?
Son of a bitch, some people are dumb.
There is just one thing Thomas and Kavanaugh should have added:
Elections in this country are decided by voters, not prosecutors and judges. And as long as its the prosecutors and judges that are trying to decide the election then the Rocket Docket will be rocking.
If they couldn’t put Trump on trial by the first quarter of 2023 then they missed their chance.
Just look at the NY trial, they are prosecuting him for “crimes” that allegedly happened 2016 and 2017. That’s not how justice works.
Shadow docket != rocket docket.
Shadow docket has little to do with elections, either.
It’s kind of hilarious to me that this gets brought up on the same day of this whining:
“My wife and I, the last two or three years, just the nastiness and the lies,”
Which lies would those be? That you had a wealthy benefactor who paid for your moms house, your adopted nephews tuition, your fancy RV, your luxury yacht trip to Bali? That you went to a private nazi memorabilia museum on a private jet to witness the swearing in of Jim ho? I need specifics
Clarence Thomas picked the worst time in decades for his corrupt-ass whining.
Today is May 11.
The sounds of celebration, elation, and jubilation emanating from the UCLA campus today are drowning out any and all whimpering from the operators of the Clarence and Ginny Thomas Institute For Advanced Partisan Profiteering.
Congratulations, UCLA. I hope you learned the relevant lesson.
.
I gather the Republicans who control the Court's investigation of that disclosure continue to claim they are unable to identify the relevant circumstances?
Perhaps the next chief justice will be more successful in this context. It might require as little as a few days of investigation by different people.