Will Baude

Maybe somebody would start filing, you know, like multiples a day or something.

I'm not sure.

And the burden is not just the law clerks, right?

The court has a whole staff that has to handle, I mean, even just the clerks, keeping track of them, putting the docket system, putting them on the carts, wheeling them around everybody.

Like, I mean, if you reach a point where there were hundreds and hundreds of frivolous positions filed every day, you know, even if the clerks could just had a macro that said like frivolous deny, there would be a burden.

Anyway.

So I'll say one other thing that she, I don't think she says this, is you can also say the martinization rule made more sense when the court was not a court of error correction.

Because you could say, look, even if there's some injustices or, you know, that's what the court of appeals and district courts are for.

And the Supreme Court is there to resolve, you know, issues of nationwide importance, which a pro se litigant could raise.

Right.

But, like, losing, you know, losing access to a cert petition from the Speaker of the Litigant is not a huge loss from the court's point of view.

As the court has become more and more and more a court of error correction on the interim docket and otherwise, now Justice Jackson's intuition in some ways makes more sense.

Sorry, that's a surprising claim.

The court has become more and more of a court of error correction?

Well, the interim docket has taken over the merits docket.

I think on the sum total of the dockets.

That's interesting.

If you take the set of opinions, I think that's just become much more of an error correction focus.

Well, I think we did talk about the extent to which summary reversals have moved to the interim docket and then a couple moved back to the summary reversal docket this fall.

But I just – in the general expectation, the general vibe that, like, if a lower court obviously wrongly says something about the Constitution –