[FRIAM] Calling Bullshit

[Eric Charles]

Typically a "shadow docket" denial usually only has a paragraph or two
explaining why the case will not be heard. I'm not sure I've even seen one
with a full majority opinion. It is not unusual to have a short dessent,
but 4 dessents seems highly unusual. Of course, I'm an amature at this, so
others might know more. I do poke pretty deeply into a few decisions every
year, and have been doing that for a while, but am certainly not a SCOTUS
expert.

The majority rationale seems to be what is summarized before the Robert's
dissent in the link provided above.

To prevail in an application for a stay or an injunction, an applicant must
carry the burden of making a “strong showing” that it is “likely to succeed
on the merits,” that it will be “irreparably injured absent a stay,” that
the balance of the equities favors it, and that a stay is consistent with
the public interest. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009); Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 66 (2020) (citing
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008)).
The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the
constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. But their application also
presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions on which they
have not carried their burden. For example, federal courts enjoy the power
to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves.
California v. Texas, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 8). And it is
unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to
enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit
our intervention. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409 (2013)
(“threatened injury must be certainly impending” (citation omitted)). The
State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess
the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor
is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an
injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s
law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 163 (1908). Finally, the sole
private-citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating that he
has no present intention to enforce the law. In light of such issues, we
cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction
or stay application. In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not
purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in
the applicants' lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any
conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits
other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas
state courts.

-----------
<echarles at american.edu>


On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 1:49 PM uǝlƃ ☤>$ <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

> I can't find the majority opinion. This page implies there should be one:
>
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21a24.html
> The dissenting opinions are all HTML linked. Maybe I'm just incompetent.
>
> Yeah, there's no doubt that the provenance of the artifact (and its
> content) is also important and might submit to (manual) deconstruction. But
> at some point AI will eventually do a much better job. The robots will be
> better postmodernists than we could ever be.
>
> On 9/13/21 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > If there is an artifact, it makes me wonder what the point of the
> artifact practitioner is.    Law, medicine, this should all fall to AI.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ?>$
> > Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 10:20 AM
> > To: friam at redfish.com
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Calling Bullshit
> >
> > Exactly. EricC's comment on correlations between the
> originalist-textualist axis and the liberal-conservative axis ignores the
> useful idiot, Tool, aspect. The question is one of whether or not there is
> such a thing as Ground Truth. When ACB makes some decision based on some
> occult perspective, originalist or pragmatist or whatever, how can she be
> sure she's not merely a tool for the conservatives?
> >
> > In long-winded, written out justifications, that artifact allows for
> both criticism/error-correction *and* postmodern reinterpretation of that
> artifact. But with dead-of-night, unsigned rulings, we're no better off
> than drunk texting one's ex- ... or "wingin' it" when cutting lumber for
> your porch.
> >
> > So, here, ACB is demonstrating that she *is* a political hack, by
> defending occult decisions, post hoc. And it doesn't really matter what
> quadrant it lands on in the 2D space. What matters is the *method*, laid
> out in bare artifacts that we can all criticize.
> >
> > One of my employees argued, in response to my criticism, that I simply
> don't understand his "method" or "process". Well, yeah. Right. Of course I
> don't understand your (pretention at a) method or process because I have no
> artifacts to either learn from or deconstruct. No artifact = no method.
> Similarly, the guy building our porch is doing a fantastic job. But he does
> it all in his head ... no design documents ... no drafting ... etc. Do
> savants contribute to society? Or are they really just crypto-leeches on
> society? ACB can claim to be originalist till the cows come home. But we'll
> never know for sure. And she can never know for sure, either. Decades from
> now, we'll be able to induce some methods from her written opinions. But
> not yet.
> >
>
> --
> ☤>$ uǝlƃ
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210913/e9c67cd3/attachment.html>