Dan Epps

how that might shake out in this individual case yeah i got that sense but so the dig for that one came out first and my reaction was well i thought it was they were going to dig in nvidia not in facebook yeah i i discovered uh that wikipedia has a list this is really useful of all of the digs uh on the court since uh the 1989 term at least that purports to be a complete list Oh, that's amazing.

Hold on. Yeah, I gave you a link to this.

Hold on. Yeah, I gave you a link to this.

Other people speculated they just didn't want to do two in one day because it was extra embarrassing.

Other people speculated they just didn't want to do two in one day because it was extra embarrassing.

Was there a published dissent from the dig? Nope. That's always so interesting because there's tons of work that goes in and presumably when it takes that long, there must have been a lot of inter-chambers communication, possibly actual drafts written. And then most of the time when they dig, it's just the one-line order and that's it. Sometimes people write dissents.

Was there a published dissent from the dig? Nope. That's always so interesting because there's tons of work that goes in and presumably when it takes that long, there must have been a lot of inter-chambers communication, possibly actual drafts written. And then most of the time when they dig, it's just the one-line order and that's it. Sometimes people write dissents.

There was one that came out my term. Robertson versus United States ex-Royal Watson, where it was a 5-4. There was a 4-justice dissent, which is interesting, but I'd say that is not the norm.

There was one that came out my term. Robertson versus United States ex-Royal Watson, where it was a 5-4. There was a 4-justice dissent, which is interesting, but I'd say that is not the norm.

I imagine that's frustrating that whoever was putting work into it. Clearly, if it takes that long, something was happening behind the scenes.

I imagine that's frustrating that whoever was putting work into it. Clearly, if it takes that long, something was happening behind the scenes.

Shouldn't it be called something else then if it's stuff changes in the world? Doesn't it improvidently suggest – dismissed as improvidently granted, doesn't it suggest shouldn't have been granted in the first place? Shouldn't there be some disposition that's like, yes, it should have been granted, but stuff changed and now –

Shouldn't it be called something else then if it's stuff changes in the world? Doesn't it improvidently suggest – dismissed as improvidently granted, doesn't it suggest shouldn't have been granted in the first place? Shouldn't there be some disposition that's like, yes, it should have been granted, but stuff changed and now –

If anybody takes words seriously, it should be the Supreme Court of the United States.

If anybody takes words seriously, it should be the Supreme Court of the United States.

And then we have some shadow docket-y opinions. Kind of some interesting stuff on here. I don't know if any of these were ones you were interested in talking about.

And then we have some shadow docket-y opinions. Kind of some interesting stuff on here. I don't know if any of these were ones you were interested in talking about.

Yeah, he says, I'm concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.

Yeah, he says, I'm concerned that some federal courts are succumbing to the temptation to use the doctrine of Article III standing as a way of avoiding some particularly contentious constitutional questions.

While it was important that federal courts heed the limits of their constitutional authority, it was equally important that they carry out their virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given them.