The order of operation would seem to be 1. Establish the agenda the court wants to pursue (e.g., support states efforts to limit voting, make Christian beliefs a more important aspect of our culture and government, limit the administrative state, etc.). 2. Decide the case. 3. Tailor the QP to support the decision from step 2.
Oral arguments often seem superfluous. SCOTUS could save a lot of collective time by forgoing oral arguments in most cases.
(Fixed a crucial granted/denied typo, sorry email readers!)
This is reminiscent of the “seven layer dip” of Al-Nashiri” as described by the National Security Podcast.
The order of operation would seem to be 1. Establish the agenda the court wants to pursue (e.g., support states efforts to limit voting, make Christian beliefs a more important aspect of our culture and government, limit the administrative state, etc.). 2. Decide the case. 3. Tailor the QP to support the decision from step 2.
Oral arguments often seem superfluous. SCOTUS could save a lot of collective time by forgoing oral arguments in most cases.
Well for what it's worth there was no oral argument in these cases.
Unless I'm hallucinating, I listened to the oral arguments in Dobbs and Biden vs. Nebraska.
Sorry I meant in Illinois v Trump. Now I understand better what you were originally saying.
What a fascinating way of looking at these decisions!