I'm heavily in the "anything-but-shadow docket" camp, particularly as it relates to reporting. Calling it the "shadow docket" at this point is similar to calling the Democrats the "commie party" or the Republicans the "fascist party" - a lot of people would agree with the term, and with a partisan alignment similar to the sample here you'd probably get a similar plurality. But if the purpose is to report or analyze in a non-partisan manner, such terms would be grossly improper. "Shadow docket" may not be *as* egregious, but should be avoided for the exact same reason.
This is an interesting exercise. Of course, we don't know how these results would compare to the one we'd get from a survey conducted among another, different subset of the general population. But this survey, conducted just among volunteer participants, anonymously, who read Mr. Lat's "Original Jurisdiction" is still interesting enough.
If I were the general counsel of a company looking to hire lawyers to prepare a certiorari petition AND to handle all the emergency/procedural motions and applications that might go along with that, though, I damned sure wouldn't hire lawyers who use the term "shadow docket." You might as well begin your pleadings with: "To the Dishonorable Co-Conspirators of Said Court:"
Sorry, I am in the "too busy and missed the poll" column.
I urge you to consider writing a column showing the dissonance between the headings that the Court's own website uses -- "Opinions of the Court" and "Opinions Relating to Orders." -- and the terms most of us use: "Merits docket" and "emergency" or just "Orders" docket. The Court ought to align with common parlance -- or we should start to align with their headings.
As the author of email Sarah Isgur read on AO proposing "short-order docket" a few months back, I'm pleasantly surprised it's picked up some steam, and not at all surprised that it takes third place behind "shadow docket" and "emergency docket." I don't know that shadow docket will ever truly be shaken from public use, and emergency docket does indeed capture a lot of what is done with it (to steel-man the term, people go to the emergency room for medical treatments outside of true emergencies. Sometimes it takes too long to get an appointment with your general physician; sometimes it's the only place that's open when you need a quick fix for a high fever or a kid with a spontaneous and mysterious rash).
However, in my admittedly biased opinion (and one who is unashamedly trying to make "fetch" happen), I think short-order docket is the most promising candidate that hits all the points we're trying to in this revisionist exercise. We (or at least the Court and those supporting it as an institution) want a term to replace the pejorative and nefarious-sounding shadow docket that still conveys an accurate description of what it does. Short-order docket is both literally and figuratively descriptive. As David says, the orders on the docket are on the shorter side, and the image it conjures of short order cooks is intentional (gourmet versus short order, merits versus interim relief, more time consuming cooking versus speed). To those who say it sounds frivolous, I encourage you to approach the whole thing with a bit more levity; what are we trying to do by shedding the shadow docket if not trying to make people stop thinking about the justices as nine Emperor Palpatines? I'd rather imagine them as diner cooks with too much on their plates who still know how to whip up a tasty meal (if not a high-end one), nor do I consider that image disrespectful - at the end of the day, though they are nine of the most intelligent and able jurists in the nation, they are still judges with a job to do, presiding over a huge docket of cases with many moving parts, and trying to keep the trains running on time (apologies for mixing metaphors).
However this all ends, I personally intend to use whatever term comes out on top, but will continue to urge folks to give short-order docket a try. If you think it doesn't fit as a descriptor, that's a fair critique. But if you don't like it because you think it trivializes or demeans the Court and its "other" docket, perhaps you should get off your high horse and spend more time at the lunch counter.
I missed the original poll. As someone who called himself "broadly libertarian" for a long time (and I guess still does) which amounted to Republican typically (at least up til Trump's hostile takeover, which is so basically complete now that it's really hard to care about it any more), "shadow" seems shadowy, "equity" seems possibly misleading, "short-order" seems abstruse, and I think I'd probably land on "interim-relief" at end of day.
I want to change my vote to "chickenshit docket" because the Justices seem to be afraid to explain their <sometimes bizarre> decisions. They are rubber-stamping too many cases that have serious consequences without explaining their logic and the relevant law. This creates the appearance that they are biased, 6:3, tarnishing the reputation of the Court and causing many of us to suspect they are voting their politics and not the law. If they are voting their politics, as they did in Dobbs, then they need to admit that. So far, they have seemingly managed to ignore their responsibility as the third branch of our government and allowed the executive branch to massively expand its domain.
I think so, but that would depend upon how devious the conservative majority is. What I'm curious about is how they can twist the law to allow the President to be a king.
In Dobbs, Alito had to misread the Constitution (or intentionally ignore Amendments 9 and 14), ignore that women had minimal rights at the time the Constitution was adopted (and had been aborting fetuses for centuries), and ignore popular published works that acknowledged abortions, e.g., A Modest Proposal by Dr. Jonathon Swift.
I don’t like shadow docket, but perhaps if we continue to push it it will motivate the justices (most of whom seem to dislike it) to provide their preferred alternative and settle the debate once and for all.
Until they explain their rulings and why they took the cases on a non-merits docket, it is a shadow docket. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, . . . .
For neutrality I'm leaning toward both Motion Docket, and Expedited Docket. Sitting with them here for a second, Expedited has a sense of urgency and movement that points to the importance brought to the cases the court gives them based entirely on the actions taken. In contrast, Motion Docket feels much to pedestrian, a going through the motions type of feeling.
I think the Court has earned the negative connotations of "Shadow Docket".
"Given how the Supreme Court has been voting on that docket—18-3 for the Trump administration"
Combined with the Constitution Destroying track record of DJT's second term, not to mention ramming religious beliefs down everyone's throat, have they no shame?
I'm heavily in the "anything-but-shadow docket" camp, particularly as it relates to reporting. Calling it the "shadow docket" at this point is similar to calling the Democrats the "commie party" or the Republicans the "fascist party" - a lot of people would agree with the term, and with a partisan alignment similar to the sample here you'd probably get a similar plurality. But if the purpose is to report or analyze in a non-partisan manner, such terms would be grossly improper. "Shadow docket" may not be *as* egregious, but should be avoided for the exact same reason.
This is an interesting exercise. Of course, we don't know how these results would compare to the one we'd get from a survey conducted among another, different subset of the general population. But this survey, conducted just among volunteer participants, anonymously, who read Mr. Lat's "Original Jurisdiction" is still interesting enough.
If I were the general counsel of a company looking to hire lawyers to prepare a certiorari petition AND to handle all the emergency/procedural motions and applications that might go along with that, though, I damned sure wouldn't hire lawyers who use the term "shadow docket." You might as well begin your pleadings with: "To the Dishonorable Co-Conspirators of Said Court:"
I wonder what result a poll of Advisory Opinions listeners would have
Probably pretty similar, if I had to guess. But I can think of several Substacks and podcasts with very different demographics.
Sorry, I am in the "too busy and missed the poll" column.
I urge you to consider writing a column showing the dissonance between the headings that the Court's own website uses -- "Opinions of the Court" and "Opinions Relating to Orders." -- and the terms most of us use: "Merits docket" and "emergency" or just "Orders" docket. The Court ought to align with common parlance -- or we should start to align with their headings.
As the author of email Sarah Isgur read on AO proposing "short-order docket" a few months back, I'm pleasantly surprised it's picked up some steam, and not at all surprised that it takes third place behind "shadow docket" and "emergency docket." I don't know that shadow docket will ever truly be shaken from public use, and emergency docket does indeed capture a lot of what is done with it (to steel-man the term, people go to the emergency room for medical treatments outside of true emergencies. Sometimes it takes too long to get an appointment with your general physician; sometimes it's the only place that's open when you need a quick fix for a high fever or a kid with a spontaneous and mysterious rash).
However, in my admittedly biased opinion (and one who is unashamedly trying to make "fetch" happen), I think short-order docket is the most promising candidate that hits all the points we're trying to in this revisionist exercise. We (or at least the Court and those supporting it as an institution) want a term to replace the pejorative and nefarious-sounding shadow docket that still conveys an accurate description of what it does. Short-order docket is both literally and figuratively descriptive. As David says, the orders on the docket are on the shorter side, and the image it conjures of short order cooks is intentional (gourmet versus short order, merits versus interim relief, more time consuming cooking versus speed). To those who say it sounds frivolous, I encourage you to approach the whole thing with a bit more levity; what are we trying to do by shedding the shadow docket if not trying to make people stop thinking about the justices as nine Emperor Palpatines? I'd rather imagine them as diner cooks with too much on their plates who still know how to whip up a tasty meal (if not a high-end one), nor do I consider that image disrespectful - at the end of the day, though they are nine of the most intelligent and able jurists in the nation, they are still judges with a job to do, presiding over a huge docket of cases with many moving parts, and trying to keep the trains running on time (apologies for mixing metaphors).
However this all ends, I personally intend to use whatever term comes out on top, but will continue to urge folks to give short-order docket a try. If you think it doesn't fit as a descriptor, that's a fair critique. But if you don't like it because you think it trivializes or demeans the Court and its "other" docket, perhaps you should get off your high horse and spend more time at the lunch counter.
I missed the original poll. As someone who called himself "broadly libertarian" for a long time (and I guess still does) which amounted to Republican typically (at least up til Trump's hostile takeover, which is so basically complete now that it's really hard to care about it any more), "shadow" seems shadowy, "equity" seems possibly misleading, "short-order" seems abstruse, and I think I'd probably land on "interim-relief" at end of day.
Tho I could use half an enchilada right now.
I want to change my vote to "chickenshit docket" because the Justices seem to be afraid to explain their <sometimes bizarre> decisions. They are rubber-stamping too many cases that have serious consequences without explaining their logic and the relevant law. This creates the appearance that they are biased, 6:3, tarnishing the reputation of the Court and causing many of us to suspect they are voting their politics and not the law. If they are voting their politics, as they did in Dobbs, then they need to admit that. So far, they have seemingly managed to ignore their responsibility as the third branch of our government and allowed the executive branch to massively expand its domain.
Given that you already see them as voting their politics, would publishing opinions actually make a difference to how you see the judgements?
I think so, but that would depend upon how devious the conservative majority is. What I'm curious about is how they can twist the law to allow the President to be a king.
In Dobbs, Alito had to misread the Constitution (or intentionally ignore Amendments 9 and 14), ignore that women had minimal rights at the time the Constitution was adopted (and had been aborting fetuses for centuries), and ignore popular published works that acknowledged abortions, e.g., A Modest Proposal by Dr. Jonathon Swift.
I don’t like shadow docket, but perhaps if we continue to push it it will motivate the justices (most of whom seem to dislike it) to provide their preferred alternative and settle the debate once and for all.
Until they explain their rulings and why they took the cases on a non-merits docket, it is a shadow docket. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, . . . .
For neutrality I'm leaning toward both Motion Docket, and Expedited Docket. Sitting with them here for a second, Expedited has a sense of urgency and movement that points to the importance brought to the cases the court gives them based entirely on the actions taken. In contrast, Motion Docket feels much to pedestrian, a going through the motions type of feeling.
I think the Court has earned the negative connotations of "Shadow Docket".
"Given how the Supreme Court has been voting on that docket—18-3 for the Trump administration"
Combined with the Constitution Destroying track record of DJT's second term, not to mention ramming religious beliefs down everyone's throat, have they no shame?
I am firmly in the “shadow docket” camp and I believe even great philosophers like Nietzsche and Habermas would agree, as I wrote here. https://open.substack.com/pub/philosophersblade/p/the-shadow-docket-midnight-rule-by?r=62hbyt&utm_medium=ios
I change my vote to "who cares"?