So on brand for him that he thinks a desire to be popular is much better than trying to show independence.

100%. A preliminary injunction and review of it are imbued with “hey judge, I want you to weigh these apples against that weather over there,” and that means judges of good faith will come to different conclusions. That‘s a disagreement on the merits, not a procedural problem.

4. There has definitely been inconsistency. Some of that - probably the bulk of it - is differing ideologies and preexisting biases. But some of it is the court is learning/developing how to respond to increasingly autocratic executive and aggressive district court intervention as it goes. /end

2. There are strong procedural criticisms of interim docket. Those generally apply to the entire court, not just one wing.

3. Popular reaction to “shadow docket” hasn’t accounted for the interrelated issues of increasing executive fiat, nationwide injunctions, though @stevevladeck.bsky.social has.

This is the right focus, I think.

1. Some (not all) critics of the interim docket are making claims that procedural irregularities show a sort of lawlessness, when really, those critics just disagree on the underlying merits.

And Vancouver may not even be able to be Vancouver next season. Such a shame.

Even the reporters characterization of it on the daily podcast didn’t really move me as it adding something novel. 🤷‍♂️ 2/2

The reaction to the reporting seems largely to be people re-iterating their pre-exiting frustration with the court and its rulings on the interim docket. (And I understand the frustration!) But this reporting isn’t really adding much that wasn’t there./1

As someone not enmeshed in the referenced networks, I am not at all scandalized by the contents of the memos, and I agree with Baude’s recurring point, which is that the reporting and memos add virtually nothing that wasn’t already widely believed/accepted.

Are there any particular examples of “bad political judgment” that make the rest of his legal analysis “non-credible?”

(And my response there is probably a bit reductionist, and apologies if so. Interested to know if you see daylight between that reductionist view and what you're actually saying.)

This is, at bottom, a decision that anyone has bad political judgment (which, I'd guess, doesn't overlap with any political judgment one holds themselves, only other's views) is non-credible and not worth listening to.

Dan has been very clear he disagrees with Will on both of those points. He just doesn’t do it in caustic terms or tone.

This is partly why I continue to listen to the podcast. Focuses on less covered cases and doctrinal analysis. Can get plenty of rage reaction elsewhere.

This feels like a “not the onion” headline.

Reading Judging Statutes and Reading Law together is incredibly effective prep for new law clerks.

Als - for the record - he’s just genuinely a good guy. I’ve met the shortlisters from the 5th. Smart guys, but not particularly warm or interested in others. Judge Willet exudes kindness and a confidence born of humility.

He’s probably thinking state Supreme Court justice.

Charlie Kirk gave his life for free speech so we could cancel college speakers.

(Also, if I remember correctly, there aren’t any really solid written opinions from the Fugitive Slave Act episodes that will be instructive. It’s largely historical parallel, not law.)

That said, bad dicta in Bivens and the rise of qualified immunity have probably distorted the paradigm on how State officers are treated that it’s fair to say, like much else, things have changed.

Fugitive Slave Act prosecution precedents, here we come!

Followed by determining whether anything involved in the disbarment process causes cancer.

So the extended argument she’s making is supported by empirical work - and the assumption she makes doesn’t depend on voting change behavior (which is what you’ve highlighted).

Indeed! The finding of the article is that it does not change voting outcomes - but acknowledges there are likely behavioral changes. Everything lsgur focuses on is the behavioral change (she doesn’t assert there would be a voting change). She worries the behavioral change woule change noms.

You also seem to be ignoring the first line of the paragraph where she unambiguously calls transparency “a good thing.”

It’s an op ed style article, so I don’t think she’s going to drop a string cite. She is not the first person to suggest that observation of deliberation changes the nature of the deliberation. If it’s a silly argument, there’s a bunch of silly PhDs goofily writing silly articles about it. Eg

Should the Justices conferences be broadcast? Should all SCOTUS memos be available for public review within 24 hours of circulation? Should the Justices ought to wear Apple Watches during oral argument with their heart rates live fed to a public feed?

All of these would increase transparency.

I imagine you don’t think transparency is in and of itself good, either. Or at least that there ought to be limits on it.

I would, but I fear they’d know many Americans (including me) call these things “Dutch babies” which raises questions I am unwilling and potentially unable to answer, so I come in with a losing hand.