Doom Report (Week 66: What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men? The Shadow Docket)

If you don’t know what the “shadow docket” is, you probably should.  See, sometimes our Supreme Court just issues a ruling: no trial, no arguments, and—most crucially—no explanation.  The most we get is the count of how many justices concurred and how many dissented, and sometimes the dissenters will write up a little “this is bullshit!” screed so that we observers know it’s not us who’s crazy for thinking this entire process is kinda skeezy.  Ostensibly, the purpose of the shadow docket is for emergencies: situations where a full hearing would take too long and the situation needs an immediate decision.  In practice, this particular court often uses it to agree with the Trump regime without having to explain itself.  Better yet, since the media tends to focus on the flashy trials with all the belabored arguments, shadow docket decisions can often fly under the radar.  Just a quick vote among the rightwing nutjob justices, give the mad king what he wants, and move swiftly on to an issue where they can say “no” to Trump (e.g. tariffs, birthright citizenship) and preserve their aura of “independence.”

So I know what it is, but I always thought the shadow docket was this thing that had always been around, and this court was just perverting it for their own sleazy agenda.  But, no: turns out that the shadow docket was, in fact, entirely invented by our very own current Chief Justice, John Roberts.  And, according to a new exposé on the origin of the shadow docket, it was, in fact, invented because Roberts didn’t care for something Obama wanted to do.  Quick! the government is about to favor real people over corporations in this one, very narrow case!  This is an EMERGENCY!

You can get full debriefs on the New York Times story from either Takes by Jamelle Bouie or Strict Scrutiny’s Leah Litman and guest Steve Vladeck (or preferably both), but definitely don’t sleep on this further example of how the rightwing nutjobs are twisting our institutions to their whims.

---

Other things you need to know this week:

• On Monday’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart breaks down Trump’s performance in the Iran War.

• Another pretty good week in review from Adam Kinzinger.

• If you heard that Tucker Carlson “apologized” for supporting Trump and you think that maybe you should take that with a grain of salt, you’re not alone.  Listen to a shorter take from Jane Coaston and Tim Miller on What a Day, or get the full diatribe from Katy, Cody, and Jonathan over on Even More News.

• On Mehdi Unfiltered, Mehdi Hasan has a pretty good interview with Maine Senatorial candidate Graham Platner.  Worth a watch, especially if you’re lucky enough to have the chance to vote for him.

• Ben McKenzie is everywhere.  You may recall that I mentioned last week that the actor-turned-economist was on The Weekly Show; well, this week he shows up on The Daily Show for a shorter chat with Michael Kosta and also on Hasan Minhaj Doesn’t Know, where Hasan has a chat with him that is every bit as informative (and as long) as the Jon Stewart interview, and maybe even a bit more entertaining to boot.

• The Some More News crew republished a highlight from an old episode that breaks down Stephen Miller’s weird origin story.  If you missed it the first time around, you should definitely check it out (and, even if you saw it way back when, it might be worth a refresher).  Dude is a very creepy, very weird, not-quite-human racist of the highest caliber.  Not that high-caliber racism is something to be proud of.  Although Stephen Miller likely would be.

---

As I write this, the attempted shooting of Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is too new to have much coverage of it in the channels I frequent.  Brian Tyler Cohen has a pretty decent take on it here, and he notes that the primary fallout seems to be Trump saying, “see? this is why I have to have a ballroom.”  Which ... no.  It’s so inordinately ridiculous that it is (once again, as Mehdi Hasan is fond of saying) a thing that if proposed in the writer’s room of a political comedy—much less a political drama—would be shouted down for being too outrageous to be believed.

Some seem to want to view Trump’s apathy towards the multiple people who want to kill him as a sign of how tough he is, how resilient in the face of opposing odds.  I don’t know, man: I kinda think that when your response to “this person wanted you dead, sir” is “great! now how can I turn this to my advantage?” ... that might be a sign you’ve got some deeper issues.  Like maybe you’re one of those psychopaths who believe that other people don’t actually exist, so obviously you can’t be killed.  Or maybe you’re one of those people who think they’re living in a simulation.  Or maybe it’s just that your pervasive narcissism won’t let you consider anything that doesn’t benefit you.  Whichever way it is, it doesn’t seem like it’s something we should be admiring.

I’m sure we’ll hear more about the attempted shooting next week.  In the meantime, if you want to feel relieved that our country has not yet succumbed to political violence at the highest level, that’s a laudable emotion to cultivate.  And, if you also want to allow yourself a brief moment to think that these half-assed morons trying to kill our president need to get a bit more competent ... well, I won’t tell anyone.