Sobering Supreme Court Misc Orders

[John Kloehr]

This could relate to a thread in Team Sass with a recent discussion of other things SCOTUS does besides the normal docket, but not really related to 2A content. I found the difference in wording between two orders a sobering read.

 

I often see very short miscellaneous orders like this one:

 

"

 

25-7255 HITCHCOCK, JAMES V. FLORIDA

(25A1176)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

 

"

 

I always thought these were somewhat automatic, part of dotting "I"s and crossing "T"s to complete due process. Last week, there were two like this (my bold):

 

"

 

25A899 BROADNAX, JAMES G. V. TEXAS

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied as moot.

 

"

 

Maybe filing is automatic, never occurred to me SCOTUS might not review it first...

 

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

Maybe filing is automatic, never occurred to me SCOTUS might not review it first...

 

I mentioned in one thread that the Court gets around 5,000 petitions a year. Maybe more depending on the year or source cited. So there's no way for them to review all of them. 

[watab kid]

yjey should tho - even if its a quick easy decision , there are too many things left to a lawyers persuacion these days - they are not the final say on the law SCOTUS is  , 

[Subdeacon Joe]

•  

6 hours ago, watab kid said:

yjey should tho - even if its a quick easy decision , there are too many things left to a lawyers persuacion these days - they are not the final say on the law SCOTUS is  , 

 

Let's say 5,000 petitions perI year, and the Court grants cert in 100 of them. And let's say it takes half an hour for even the most perfunctory review. That long because if each was given review by  the full court they would have to follow certain forms and procedures. We're looking at 2,500 hours just to say  "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." over and over.

In a standard work year there are 2,080 hours. That's all that the SCOTUS would do. 

 

Even if you could cut it down to 15 minutes each, you get 1,250 hours just to say "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." 4 900 times. 

 

That's 104 days,  assuming an 8 hour day, to hear, the 100 cases in which they grant cert. That's to read all the briefs, hear all the arguments, question the attorneys,  discuss it among themselves, write and publish the decisions. 

 

Go over to TEAM SASS and find some threads that have links to cases and read all the amicus briefs. How long did that take you?  Now read a short 50 page decision. Including going to the cases cited. How long would it take you to write that decision? 

 

 

 

Edited May 5 by Subdeacon Joe

[Eyesa Horg]

But yet most of us can see a proposed legislation as "unconstitutional" in about a minute or less! 🤔

[Chantry]

2 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

•  

 

Let's say 5,000 petitions perI year, and the Court grants cert in 100 of them. And let's say it takes half an hour for even the most perfunctory review. That long because if each was given review by  the full court they would have to follow certain forms and procedures. We're looking at 2,500 hours just to say  "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." over and over.

In a standard work year there are 2,080 hours. That's all that the SCOTUS would do. 

 

Even if you could cut it down to 15 minutes each, you get 1,250 hours just to say "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." 4 900 times. 

 

That's 104 days,  assuming an 8 hour day, to hear, the 100 cases in which they grant cert. That's to read all the briefs, hear all the arguments, question the attorneys,  discuss it among themselves, write and publish the decisions. 

 

Go over to TEAM SASS and find some threads that have links to cases and read all the amicus briefs. How long did that take you?  Now read a short 50 page decision. Including going to the cases cited. How long would it take you to write that decision? 

 

 

 

 

That's what the law clerks are for

[watab kid]

15 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

•  

 

Let's say 5,000 petitions perI year, and the Court grants cert in 100 of them. And let's say it takes half an hour for even the most perfunctory review. That long because if each was given review by  the full court they would have to follow certain forms and procedures. We're looking at 2,500 hours just to say  "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." over and over.

In a standard work year there are 2,080 hours. That's all that the SCOTUS would do. 

 

Even if you could cut it down to 15 minutes each, you get 1,250 hours just to say "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." 4 900 times. 

 

That's 104 days,  assuming an 8 hour day, to hear, the 100 cases in which they grant cert. That's to read all the briefs, hear all the arguments, question the attorneys,  discuss it among themselves, write and publish the decisions. 

 

Go over to TEAM SASS and find some threads that have links to cases and read all the amicus briefs. How long did that take you?  Now read a short 50 page decision. Including going to the cases cited. How long would it take you to write that decision? 

 

 

 

might be that job requires overtime , a lot of ours did , , when i was working my regular job it often require=d 12 to 14 hors - i just did that last saturday at my part time "fun job" in retirement but it was worth it , 437 kids shooting trap on a saturday and competing , it was worth it , a great event , i then did another 19 hrs the next day for an ATA event , its better than 5-6 days a week that i used to do when i was younger , that was the job then , today i can walk way with no worry so i dont mind , im free of that concern but i like what im doing so ill keep doing it till the current manager leaves , then ill just call it good at 76 i dont need to continue mush longer , 

 

in my mind that lifetime nomination and paycheck/insurance on our dollars , requires more than 40 hrs a week - i get it that they get old and slow , might mean they need to be more aggressive on the hours they work , im expecting them to do their job or get out , its a tough job but they signed up for it and they best do it , 

our congress people dont and i thinik the senater folks are lacking , id have been fired if i did such a poor job in private sector , we need an attitude adjustment its not just them getting reelcted and raising funds - its trhem representing us 

[Subdeacon Joe]

16 hours ago, Chantry said:

 

That's what the law clerks are for

 

Of course! But then each justice would still need to read the 5,000 abstracts by the clerks, and discuss them if every petition is reviewed and acted on by the full Court. 

 

3 hours ago, watab kid said:

might be that job requires overtime , a lot of ours did , , when i was working my regular job it often require=d 12 to 14 hors - i just did that last saturday at my part time "fun job" in retirement but it was worth it , 437 kids shooting trap on a saturday and competing , it was worth it , a great event , i then did another 19 hrs the next day for an ATA event , its better than 5-6 days a week that i used to do when i was younger , that was the job then , today i can walk way with no worry so i dont mind , im free of that concern but i like what im doing so ill keep doing it till the current manager leaves , then ill just call it good at 76 i dont need to continue mush longer , 

 

in my mind that lifetime nomination and paycheck/insurance on our dollars , requires more than 40 hrs a week - i get it that they get old and slow , might mean they need to be more aggressive on the hours they work , im expecting them to do their job or get out , its a tough job but they signed up for it and they best do it , 

our congress people dont and i thinik the senater folks are lacking , id have been fired if i did such a poor job in private sector , we need an attitude adjustment its not just them getting reelcted and raising funds - its trhem representing us 

 

I needed some number.  Heck,  I  could have assumed 20 hour days, 7 days a week.  But would you want your petition being ruled on by justices on a schedule like that?

 

You know who is really falling down on the job? VOTERS.  Don't read candidate biographies, don't read the texts of bills and ballot measures. Barely read more than the bill title. 

 

 

[Chantry]

4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Of course! But then each justice would still need to read the 5,000 abstracts by the clerks, and discuss them if every petition is reviewed and acted on by the full Court. 

 

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the law clerks have guidelines on what the judges want/need to see and that everything else can be denied without a justice reviewing.

[Subdeacon Joe]

49 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the law clerks have guidelines on what the judges want/need to see and that everything else can be denied without a justice reviewing.

 

That's my point, which was in response to:

"yjey should tho - even if its a quick easy decision , there are too many things left to a lawyers persuacion these days - they are not the final say on the law SCOTUS is  , "

[watab kid]

20 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Of course! But then each justice would still need to read the 5,000 abstracts by the clerks, and discuss them if every petition is reviewed and acted on by the full Court. 

 

 

I needed some number.  Heck,  I  could have assumed 20 hour days, 7 days a week.  But would you want your petition being ruled on by justices on a schedule like that?

 

You know who is really falling down on the job? VOTERS.  Don't read candidate biographies, don't read the texts of bills and ballot measures. Barely read more than the bill title. 

 

 

i cant disagree that uneducated voters are the beginnings of the problem , but lying politicians are the next step , then prejudicial judges --i can go on , but we have all seen it on TV in just the last two years , the only job the supreem court should have is ruling oin items that have been kicked up the chain because of a constitutional question that is in dispute , they should take their time and contemplate their decission based on it but thats not what is happening these days - its all partisan , very rarely do we see a decission thats based soly on the constitution 

[Lefty Yeti]

On 5/5/2026 at 5:16 AM, Subdeacon Joe said:

•  

 

Let's say 5,000 petitions perI year, and the Court grants cert in 100 of them.

 

 

 

Back when they changed to not having to take every case they promised to hear at least 500 cases a year.  A number they have never reached.