By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently defended the Supreme Court’s practice of issuing rulings favoring Donald Trump without explanations, arguing the shadow docket allows for temporary relief while cases are fully litigated. He asserted that providing detailed opinions in these early stages could lead to incorrect legal positions. However, critics like Justice Elena Kagan argue these silent decisions are a mistake, as courts should explain their reasoning. Kavanaugh’s argument assumes the Court must quickly address every Trump request, a practice that deviates from historical precedent.
Read the original article here
Brett Kavanaugh says he doesn’t owe the public an explanation, and that statement, coming from a Supreme Court Justice, feels like a gut punch to the very foundations of our democracy. It’s a sentiment that seems to run contrary to the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability that should be at the heart of our government, especially within the judiciary. The very essence of a Justice’s role is to interpret the law and make decisions that impact every single one of us, the people they are supposed to serve. So, the idea that he doesn’t owe us an explanation for those decisions is, frankly, alarming.
Explaining decisions, providing the reasoning behind rulings, is literally a core function of a judge’s job. It’s how precedent is established, how the law evolves, and how the public can understand and, if necessary, challenge those decisions. The silence, the refusal to explain, smacks of something more troubling: a disregard for the public and a willingness to operate in the shadows, seemingly serving a different master than the American people. The fact that these decisions often involve the so-called “shadow docket,” which allows the court to make rulings without the usual deliberation, briefing, or oral arguments, only adds to the unease. This process seems to prioritize speed and convenience over transparency and reasoned judgment.
The criticism isn’t just about a lack of explanation, but about the potential motivations behind it. The argument is that Kavanaugh, and perhaps the conservative justices as a whole, are not acting independently, but rather as a wing of a particular political party. Decisions that seem to align with a political agenda, particularly those favoring a former president, raise serious questions about impartiality and the integrity of the court. The sense of frustration and betrayal stems from the feeling that the court is being used to advance a specific ideology or political goal rather than upholding the Constitution.
The accusations become even more pointed when combined with allegations of past misconduct. The reminder that the public views him as an “accused rapist” certainly adds another layer. It’s difficult to separate the actions of a justice from the allegations surrounding them, especially when those allegations are not fully investigated. The public perception is shaped not only by the rulings themselves but by the circumstances surrounding them.
It’s a valid point that we, the taxpayers, pay his salary. That the justice system is paid with public funds. That means the public has a right to know why these decisions are made. We’re not just talking about a private individual; we’re talking about someone holding a position of immense power and responsibility, a position that impacts the lives of millions. Ignoring that responsibility, refusing to explain, is a profound betrayal of the public trust.
The critiques raise some fundamental questions about how our legal system is supposed to work. If justices are perceived as partisan actors, accountable to no one, how can we expect them to be impartial arbiters of justice? The anger directed at Kavanaugh highlights a broader concern about the health of our democracy. It is about the feeling of powerlessness that comes when those in positions of authority refuse to be held accountable.
The concept of lifetime appointments adds another layer to this issue. Knowing that justices are not subject to reelection or other forms of direct accountability makes transparency and a willingness to explain their decisions even more important. The absence of accountability breeds arrogance. It is important for these justices to remember they work for us, the public.